Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS](SUSPENSION)

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Messages [3rd November and 8th November] as relates to the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL, BRITISH

RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL, LONDON DOCKLANDS

RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL, ST. GEORGE'S HILL,
WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL, BIRMINGHAM CITY

COUNCIL BILL AND SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Messages [3rd November and 7th November] as relates to the London Regional Transport Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, the St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill, the Birmingham City Council Bill and the Southern Water Authority Bill be now considered.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport Bill, the British Railways (No. 2) Bill, the London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill, the St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill, the Birmingham City Council Bill and the Southern Water Authority Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Rating Reform

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he now has as to the percentage of adults in Scotland who have registered for the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Preliminary indications from community charges registration officers are that the number of people included on the community charges registers, which came into force on 1 October, amount on average to more than 99 per cent. of the adults resident in their areas according to the Registrar General's population figures.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures give the lie to the campaign organised by some Labour Members that the Scottish people should refuse to register? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the figures confirm the good sense of the Scottish people in obeying the law and ignoring the illegal "Stop it" campaign supported by Labour Members?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A very bad example has been set by the Labour party in the matter of law breaking. The Scottish people, however, believe in obeying the law, and attempts by the Labour party to frustrate the compilation of the register have clearly failed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Minister accept that tomorrow will see one of the first main tests of public opinion on the poll tax in Scotland and that the votes cast in Glasgow, Govan tomorrow will show support for the SNP non-payment campaign and very little support for the Conservative party and the community charge?

Mr. Lang: I do not accept the hon. Lady's attitude and I await with interest the evidence of the 100,000-strong army of non-payers and law breakers that she intends to recruit to the SNP.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the people of Scotland on rejecting the blandishments to criminal activity by members of the Labour party and the Scottish National party, with the honourable exception of the shadow Secretary of State? Will my hon. Friend remind the Scottish people that, on average, the community charge will be only £5 per week per head, that if they are sensible enough to vote Tory, for example, in Perth and Kinross, it will be only £4 per week, but that if they are stupid enough to vote Labour it may be anything up to double that amount?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the figures published last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I emphasise that those figures are not speculative, but are founded in fact. They reflect the known facts relating to


the increase in inflation, which can affect the ceiling on business rates and the distribution and amounts of revenue support grant. As a result, any council spending more than the figure given by my right hon. and learned Friend will be doing so because it is increasing its spending.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is simply peddling myths and doing so rather pathetically. Does he accept that at no time has the Labour party advocated non-registration? Our aim has been to build a coalition against the poll tax and we have succeeded remarkably. If the Minister wishes to shrug that off, how does he account for the fact that the poll tax is almost universally unpopular and in vast areas of Scotland his party is now an electoral joke?

Mr. Lang: It is plain that the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the facts. Not only do recent opinion polls show a rise in support for the community charge, but in the past five months there has been a dramatic fall from 31 to 8 per cent. in the number of people intending to follow the blandishments of Labour Members of Parliament not to pay the community charge.

Health Boards (Savings)

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether savings have been made by the health boards in Scotland as a result of putting their ancillary services out to competitive tender.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Yes. In December 1987 I asked health boards to re-examine the potential for competitive tendering. The contracts awarded by the beginning of November as a result will save more than £14·5 million in the following three years, and that will be used for reinvestment in direct patient care.

Mr. Riddick: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the main opposition to competitive tendering has come from the Scottish TUC, the trade unions and the Scottish Labour party? While the Labour party argues in public that more money should be put into the Health Service, is it not true that in reality it is far more interested in maintaining its trade union monopoly empire, even at the expense of patient care? Does that not demonstrate the double standards of the TUC and the Scottish Labour party?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all but one respect—the policy of competitive tendering was opposed by all Opposition parties and by all Socialists in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to point out that in doing so they have opposed improvements in patient care. The £14·5 million that has been saved is equivalent to 2,400 heart bypass operations, 4,800 hip replacement operations, the salaries of 700 extra nurses and 1,300 renal dialysis machines. I must tell Opposition Members who represent constituencies in the Edinburgh area that it is also equivalent to the entire cost of the recently completed phase 2 of the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, which provides 144 new acute beds in an intensive therapy unit.

Dr. Moonie: It might help if the Minister spent some of that money on providing a heart for himself. Can he give

figures for the cost to the Health Service in Scotland during the next year of redundancy payments as a result of privatisation?

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the Glasgow Herald has suggested that the hon. Gentleman has given me too easy a time, but he will need to try a little harder than that to get accolades from that source.
The redundancy costs will be a one-off payment over the full period of the contract. I cannot give a precise figure, but about 2,000 people will be affected by competitive tendering. The best estimate I have is about £4 million over the total period.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the evidence on competitive tendering and the way in which we are using the money to benefit patients shows clearly that we are the only party that really cares about the patients? Will he confirm the story going around that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been consulting my hon. Friend on competitive tendering as he is considering that as a method to bolster his Front-Bench team?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to point out the use of competitive tendering in the allocation of Front-Bench positions. Indeed, even the policy of opting out appears attractive to some people on the Opposition Front Bench.
My hon. Friend rightly said that our policy is in the interests of the patient. It has resulted in additional resources being made available for health care. It is significant that when it comes to crossing NUPE or COHSE, no Opposition Member is prepared to defend the interests of the patient.

Mr. Galbraith: Is it not true that the Government's paper savings are, in fact, of no benefit to the patients? The Government's policy is nothing but a piece of political ideology.
Can the Minister confirm that redundancy payments resulting from competitive tendering have been so large that the Scottish Office coffers are running low? Have not the health boards been told that in future they must pay 75 per cent. of all redundancy payments? When will the hon. Gentleman give up this rubbish about competitive tendering? When will he realise that the function of the Health Service is to look after the patients, not to put money into the pockets of his former clients and companies that have funded the Conservative party?

Mr. Forsyth: I have already confirmed that the estimate for redundancy costs is about £4 million. That is compared with savings of £14·5 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that redundancy costs are paid from the centre. There is adequate provision in our budget to meet them. There is no question of health boards having to find the money. Indeed, the Scottish health boards have £14·5 million available as additional resources for patient care. If the hon. Gentleman had had his way, that money would not have been available to them.

Pesticides

Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement detailing the funding of research into the harmful effects of pesticides used in the Scottish agriculture industry.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland participates in programmes for the surveillance of pesticide residues in retail foods and provides interested parties with information on the environmental impact of pesticides.

Mr. Hood: Will the Minister acknowledge that his Government have announced cuts of £31·5 million in agricultural research in the United Kingdom, £2·37 million of which will be cut from Scottish agricultural research, which will have a devastating effect on scientists, jobs and their good work on behalf of consumers? Does he agree that those cuts will cost 79 jobs—10 per cent. of such jobs? Does he also agree that the research is into the safe use of pesticides in agriculture to make food free from pesticide pollution? Will he tell the House how he can support such ridiculous cuts?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman's question was about research funding for pesticides in Scotland. There have been no cuts, because there is no research funded in Scotland for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman talked about cuts in other research. We propose that additional resources for research in Scotland should come from those who benefit from it—the private sector. The hon. Gentleman makes a fundamental mistake if he assumes that making those who can afford to contribute pay is making cuts.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Will the Minister please define "near market research" in terms of agricultural research and development?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not entirely certain what the hon. Lady is complaining about.

Mrs. Michie: I am not complaining.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Lady is not complaining about the Government's policy, I am delighted. I should have thought that she would support our policy of encouraging those who have a commercial interest and who will benefit from research carried out by the Government to make a greater contribution. She is quick to come to the House and argue for the interests of her constituents, particularly those who are involved in agriculture. She should welcome our policy, which will make more resources available to those who need help and support.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Clearly, the Minister is ill informed about the previous subject. Is he aware that the Barnes review, with its threat to near market research, is threatening institutes, such as the Moredun research institute and King's buildings in Edinburgh, is threatening to cut 1,500 jobs nationally and £30 million off the budget, although many of these institutes have already gone out and got a great deal of sponsorship and support from private industry, and is threatening to deal a mortal blow to them?

Mr. Forsyth: If the research is worth while to the industries which will benefit from it, surely they will be prepared to make a greater contribution than at present. In asserting that the money will not be forthcoming, the hon. Gentleman is asserting that the research is not of value, and I cannot possibly agree with that.

Industrial Rates

Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals for changing the method of calculating Scottish industrial rates.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): From 1 April next year the maximum possible increase in business rates will be indexed to the rate of inflation. The Government are, moreover, committed to moving to a common non-domestic rate poundage in all areas.

Mr. Lambie: When will the Secretary of State be in a position to respond to the recent representations that he has received from the Chemical Industries Association and the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association that he should use his existing powers to set centrally a formula for calculating the decapitalisation rates to be used in dealing with the contractors' principle of valuation?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is being actively considered.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm that, unlike the Opposition, the Government have no intention of introducing rating of agricultural land?

Mr. Rifkind: I recollect that at the last election the Labour party proposed that agricultural land should be rated for the first time. I have not the slightest doubt that that would be devastating to the interests of Scottish agriculture or that those in the rural community would be aware of a proposal to that effect.

Mr. Maxton: When the Secretary of State arrived at the absurd poll tax figures for next year, did he assess inflation for business rates by local government rises in costs, or by the standard rate of inflation? What account was taken of the number of people who will be in arrears? Does he agree with the Scottish Consumer Council that 50 per cent. of those who receive rebates will be in arrears three months after the tax coming into force? Did he take that into account when he arrived at the local government poll tax figures?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment at the fact that we published figures based not on cuts being made by local authorities but on their existing level of expenditure. The non-domestic rate has been increased by the rate of inflation and the revenue support grant is being increased by almost double the rate of inflation. The simple fact that may cause discomfort to the hon. Gentleman and his local authority friends is that the figures that we published last Friday were based on the level of expenditure that local authorities are incurring in the current year. The non-domestic rate has been indexed to the rate of inflation and the increase in revenue support grant is substantially more than the current rate of inflation. The only explanation for local authorities choosing higher community charges is that they are going for growth in expenditure. Under the new system of local authority finance, for the first time local authorities will be accountable to their electors, all of whom will be asked to contribute to the cost of that excessive spending.

Infant Teaching

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will reconsider publishing the information collected for the Scottish Education Department's report on the under-sixes following publication of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education report on the under-fives.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: No, Sir.

Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that he has presided over the worst pre-school provision of all the member states of the EEC? Britain has the lowest provision, and Scotland is lower than that. Has he read the modest proposals in the EEC Childcare Network report? If so, how does he intend to respond to them? What is he hiding by refusing to publish his Department's report?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not aware of the assertions that the hon. Lady has made, but if the position is unsatisfactory it is because pre-school provision is a local authority responsibility. If the hon. Lady is arguing that the position is less than satisfactory, I should point out that under this Government the number of pupils under-fives attending some form of pre-school provision has risen by 5,000 since 1981. The majority of children aged between three and four are involved in pre-school provision. As to not publishing the Department's study, the hon. Lady will know that it was not completed. It was a research project, not a symphony, and it would not be useful if it were published in an unfinished form.

Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain why in 1977 a Labour Government spent more on nursery education than this Tory Government spent in 1988? According to Government figures given in answers to questions on 25 July, 29,300 pupils were receiving education in 1977, which cost £29,490,000. In 1988, with 10,000 more pupils and 89 more school departments, £300,000 less was spent on nursery education in Scotland, with £3 million less being spent in Strathclyde.

Mr. Forsyth: It was not a Labour Government who spent the money. The responsibility for pre-school provision rests with local authorities. Through the rate support grant, the Government have made an increase in provision of 26 per cent. since 1979. Although we have given mainly Labour-controlled local authorities more money for this purpose, they have chosen to spend it on other priorities. The hon. Gentleman must take up the matter with his colleagues on Stratchclyde regional council and other Labour-controlled authorities.

A74

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress with plans to modernise the A74.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The Government are committed to upgrading the A74 to motorway status. The A74 route corridor has been divided into three sections for feasibility study purposes and a consulting engineer has been commissioned for each. Final reports should be available fairly soon, but it will take some time to assess the consultants' findings and recommendations.

Mr. Bellingham: As one who holidays regularly in Scotland and often uses the A74, I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Does he agree that it is surprising, when so much money has been spent on Scotland's road infrastructure, that this road has been neglected, given that it is Scotland's most important road? Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been many fatal crossover accidents on the A74? Surely it is time to have crash barriers installed down the whole length of the road.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I note my hon. Friend's comments about crash barriers. It is important for the infrastructure of the lowlands of Scotland that this development should go ahead as soon as practicable. Studies are progressing as quickly as possible, but it will be next year before preliminary conclusions can be drawn. It will not be until late 1989 that a public announcement can be made and draft orders prepared. Work on the first scheme of the project will begin as quickly as possible, and continue through the 1990s. I shall look into my hon. Friend's point about crash barriers and accidents and let him know the results.

Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister recall that on his recent visit to Kilmarnock he travelled along the A77, which joins the A74? Does he realise that that is the main route from Kilmarnock to the south? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost 15 miles of that four-lane route have no barrier or central reservation and that frequently there are serious accidents on those stretches? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that in the foreseeable future barriers are placed down the whole length of the A77?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's point does not spring from this question, but I shall look into it and let him have a full reply on crash barriers. We still have to make decisions on the allocations for the roads programme for next year, and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about that.

Mr. Jack: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this road go through Fylde?

Mr. Jack: My question is about Scotland, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then I call Mr. Jack.

Mr. Jack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the A77 is not the only road improvement at which he is looking or which has been completed in Scotland, and that other projects have made a major contribution to the improved Scottish infrastructure and to improvements in the economy which seem to have been ignored by the Opposition?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: More than £100 million is spent each year on the Scottish trunk roads programme. The building of the M74, like the building of the A9, will be spread over a considerable number of years. We shall bear in mind the needs of all the other road programmes throughout Scotland.

Motherwell Enterprise Trust

Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Motherwell enterprise trust.

Mr. Rifkind: During a visit to Lanarkshire on 27 and 28 September I met representatives of the Motherwell enterprise trust on a number of occasions, when there was a useful opportunity to discuss the operation of the trust and its various activities.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that his visit was welcome, but he will need to come back soon because he left a lot of unfinished business? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Development Agency has run down, almost to the point of closure, its Motherwell project office and that many issues in Lanarkshire are too big for local enterprise trusts to handle? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman checked in particular what the BSC privatisation prospectus will be able to say about the essential contribution that Ravenscraig, Dalzell and Clydesdale will make to industry in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation to visit his constituency again. Consideration is being given to a further phase of the Motherwell project. In addition, we have substantially increased the resources available to the Motherwell enterprise trust, from £13,000 last year to £30,000 in 1988–89. The trust has received more than £60,000 from the SDA for specific projects this year in the area of the Motherwell enterprise trust. I have no doubt that Ravenscraig and Dalzell will continue to make an important contribution to the employment and economy of Lanarkshire, and I think that that is the view of both sides of the House.

Scottish Homes

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress with the establishment of Scottish Homes.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Under the Housing (Scotland) Act Scottish Homes will be established formally on 1 December 1988. The chairman, chief executive and eight additional members of the Scottish Homes board have now been appointed.

Mr. Ingram: The Minister is pressing on with his intention to wind up public sector housing in Scotland, but does he think that it is democratic to transfer the control of housing stock from one housing body to another without consulting the tenants, as occurred recently in the Borders? Is it democratic to refuse direct representation for the 83,000 Scottish Special Housing Association tenants of Scottish Homes?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Tenancies in the Borders have not been transferred. What is at stake is a management agreement. The SSHA has a number of management agreements with district councils. The SSHA is perfectly entitled to have them, but it is under an obligation to ensure that a very good service is provided. All that most tenants of Scottish Homes will notice is a change of name. They will have the same rights and their rents will be fixed in the same way. Furthermore, the tenants will deal with the same people as they dealt with in the past.

Mr. Ron Brown: As many SSHA tenants have been conned into buying their substandard homes, will the Minister agree to meet a delegation of their representatives before Scottish Homes comes into existence?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman wants me to see a delegation about, but the rights that SSHA tenants now enjoy will be maintained and will continue. Scottish Homes is designed to encourage and bring about urban regeneration by means of a much faster and more efficient process than has been used in the past.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that public sector investment in public housing in Scotland has increased by 16 per cent. under this Government, whereas it fell by 37 per cent. in real terms when the Labour party was in power? Therefore, the Opposition have no right to complain about my hon. Friend's performance.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Public sector investment has increased substantially since 1979. The recent supplementary allocation for public sector spending on public sector housing in Scotland has amounted to an increase of more than £30 million in the past year.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not know who is handing out these daft supplementary questions to English Back Benchers on the Government side of the House, but will the Minister confirm that he is encouraging the SSHA to transfer the management, and in due course the ownership, of SSHA houses in various areas to private interests? Does he recall an assurance given in the House on 11 January by the Secretary of State for Scotland that no indvidual SSHA tenant would be compulsorily transferred to a high-rent, low-security tenancy in the private sector? Since it would have been unparliamentary for the Secretary of State to have lied to the House at that time, will the Minister tell us what those assurances really meant?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With regard to tenants' choice, my right hon. and learned Friend said that every commitment he has made will be adhered to and stood by. There have been voluntary disposals of tenancies by local authorities for many years, including the setting up of co-operatives. If subsequently there should be a proposal to change the ownership of Waverley housing trust, tenants will be given the statutory right to be consulted. That statutory right is to be debated later today.

Eduation Reform

Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on national testing and the national curriculum.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: There were over 1,000 responses to the consultation document on curriculum and assessment and these showed considerable support for the principles of redefining the curriculum, improving assessment and giving more and better information to

Mr. Ewing: It is not a question of more and better information—in other words, national testing. Will the Minister explain in simple terms to very worried parents what will happen to a child if, when he is tested at seven and 11, he produces poor results? What impact will that have on that child when he goes into secondary education?


One of the main reasons, among others, for the people of Govan voting for Bob Gillespie, the Labour candidate, tomorrow is that parents in Govan are desperately worried about the serious damage that the Minister is doing to Scottish education.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member should recognise that when we talk about more information for parents, we are not talking just about introducing testing in English and mathematics at primary four and primary seven. We are talking about providing a new report card that will give information about each child's performance in every subject. It will include a statement to parents about what their children are expected to learn and the level of attainment that they have reached. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that people in Govan or anywhere else do not want to know how well their children are doing at school, he is out of touch.
When a child is identified as having difficulty with basic literacy and numeracy, he or she should be given extra assistance. One of the things that have come out of restart is the fact that far too many children have gone right through primary and secondary education, but have come out with basic difficulties in literacy and numeracy. Not only have those difficulties not been identified, they have not been attended to.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that a recent opinion poll shows that two Scots out of three approve of the Government's educational policies? Does he agree also that those policies give parents more information and will result in better standards? Does he further agree that the same opinion poll showed that two Scots out of three want opting out to be introduced to the Scottish system? Will he fulfil the wishes of the Scottish people and introduce a Bill in the near future that will allow opting out?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that recent opinion poll, but I should add that it was carried out by the Daily Express. The Mori poll carried out in May for The Scotsman might be more to the taste of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Even then, before the Educational Institute of Scotland's campaign, which seems to have coalesced support for the Government's proposals, the Mori poll showed that some 45 per cent. of parents approve of testing in primary schools. The general secretary of the EIS has said that, by drawing attention to the desire for choice and information for parents, the Government have identified a weakness in the education system in Scotland which parents are determined to have removed.

Mr. Norman Hogg: In what way have the Government altered their stance on the curriculum and assessment to meet the reservations of teachers and parents? Does the Minister agree that there continue to be severe reservations about the narrowing of the curriculum, ranking of pupils in schools, teaching to tests and placing undue stress on young children? Why do these fears persist in spite of the Secretary of State's statement? Who has the Secretary of State convinced? Who has the Minister convinced? They have certainly not convinced parents and teachers in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is always very fair, and he is fair enough to point out that we have adapted our proposals on the curriculum and assessment to meet

anxieties that have been expressed about the ranking of pupils and selection. He is right to say that my right hon. and learned Friend has given a clear indication that the results of testing will not be used to rank children in class and that the information will be limited to parents and teachers. There is no question of pass and fail examinations being used to provide entry to a secondary school. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked why nobody believes that. The answer is, I think, that there are not many people in politics or in the trade union movement who share his respect for the facts and for constructive and informed debate.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the utterly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Industry (Ownership)

Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the likely pattern of ownership of industry in Scotland over the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: In the past nine years there has been a net increase of around 15,000 registered Scottish companies, and the number of individual shareholders in Scotland has doubled. Given the maintenance of the Government's economic policies, which have created in Scotland an environment in which enterprise can flourish, I fully expect these trends to continue.

Mr. Darling: If Terry Butcher and I can share the same platform in defence of a Scottish company, will the Minister accept that there is a growing feeling that Scottish and Newcastle is merely one company in a line of others that is at risk of foreign takeover in Scotland? Will he accept that the Government's open-door policy to mergers will put the ownership of Scottish industry at risk, and that companies such as Scottish Electricity will be owned by people who are based on the other side of the world, perhaps, and not in Scotland? What will he do to protect Scottish industry?

Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about a specific company. As he knows, the Director General of Fair Trading has been reviewing the matter and the Scottish Office has been involved in the consultations. The director general's report has been passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and presumably he will make an announcement in due course.

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister say what advice his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given to Lord Young about the takeover? What estimate has the Government made of job losses in the event of Elders being successful?

Mr. Lang: I am not in a position to disclose advice of that sort to the hon. Gentleman. The result of the Scottish Council's surveys show that there are as many jobs in manufacturing industry in Scottish-owned companies now as there were 10 years ago. The hon. Gentleman is unduly sensitive about that issue.

Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most dramatic change in ownership in Scotland could come


about in the next five years from a large privatisation programme? Does he accept that that would be a real way in which to return power and control to the Scottish people? That is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome, especially those who represent parties which cannot decide whether they are for or against devolution of power.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The greatest single cause for the transfer of Scottish companies out of Scotland—the transfers include the famous companies of Colville, Stewart and Lloyd, Scott Lithgow, Yarrow, Kincaid, Robb Caledon, Alexanders and MacBrayne—has been nationalisation under Labour Governments. We propose to denationalise industry. As my hon. Friend says, that will enable electricity companies and bus companies, for example, to be re-established in Scotland.

European Single Market

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to encourage the presence of business headquarters in Scotland in advance of the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: Through Locate in Scotland the Government continue successfully to encourage companies to establish themselves in Scotland. Many such companies have already set up headquarters for their manufacturing facilities in Scotland in order to serve European markets; and 1992 offers further opportunities for such developments.

Mr. Doran: Perhaps the Minister will agree with me that although it is important to attract new industry to Scotland, it is important also to protect local and indigenous industry. Is he aware that this afternoon the Hall Russell shipyard in my constituency has been forced to bring in the receiver, thus putting at risk 450 jobs and the only remaining shipyard on the east coast of Scotland? Will he join me in encouraging the Overseas Development Administration to allow the yard sufficient draw-down facilities to ensure the completion of the St. Helena ferry, which is now under construction, and assist us in our aim to retain the yard as a viable unit under the receiver, with a view to a successful purchase in future?

Mr. Lang: I have noted with concern and regret the decision of Hall Russell to call in a receiver this afternoon. I hope that the difficulty will prove to be transitional. The ODA will wish to be in touch with the receiver because of its interest in the St. Helena ferry. The ODA stands ready to give whatever help it can to secure the future of the yard.

Mr. Oppenheim: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent figures that show that the output of the Scottish electronics industry has expanded by one third in the past five years and that the number of skilled technical graduates employed in the industry has increased by no less than 25 per cent.? Of the foreign investors that are investing in the industry, American and Japanese companies predominate. All this is excellent news, but it highlights the danger to the Scottish economy of the Fortress Europe mentality that is now so prevalent in Brussels.

Mr. Lang: I take my hon. Friend's point. He is right to draw attention to the success of the Scottish electronics

industry, which now provides about 45,000 jobs. Increasing numbers of companies from America, Japan and elsewhere are choosing to locate their manufacturing base in Scotland for the single European market in 1992. This gives a more accurate reflection of the reality of the Scottish economy than some of the comments that we hear from Opposition Members.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that the serious and disturbing news about Hall Russell directly threatens the existence of an important and well-established Scottish company? Does he recognise that, whatever the difficulties faced by management, the skills of the work force are still there, the St. Helena ferry order has still to be completed, and, I hope, that further orders can be won? We would all echo the Minister's hope that the difficulties will be transitional, but will he give a guarantee that he will take positive steps to see that the yard remains in business and that the jobs are secured?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should step in with an open cheque book, I have to draw his attention to the EC directive on such matters. We stand ready to give whatever help we can to the Scottish Development Agency and, as I said earlier, we hope that this will be a transitional difficulty.

Education Reform

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of bringing his proposals for educational reform in Scotland into line with England.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has no such proposals. Our education policy throughout the United Kingdom is geared to ensuring greater parental involvement in the management of schools, an extension of parental choice, and the pursuit of excellence. This is in the best traditions of the Scottish education system.

Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the evidence of strong support in Scotland for the education reforms being carried through by the Government, will my hon. Friend confirm that there already is in Scotland a majority of parents on school boards, making nonsense of Opposition claims that in some way Scotland is following England? Quite the reverse is the case.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the parental majority on school boards in Scotland, which contrasts with the position in England. It is a bit rich that the Educational Institute of Scotland complains in Scotland that our proposals for reform represent Anglicisation, while at the same time it comes to London to the other place to claim that Scotland is being unfairly treated because there is a majority of parents provided for in the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and urging the other place to reject those proposals to bring Scotland into line with England. The cry in Scotland appears to be Anglicisation, and in London that Scotland is being prevented from having a separate system. My hon. Friend points to the evidence of considerable support for our proposals, and he is right to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What evidence?"] Those hon. Members who say, "What evidence?" should have a word with their constituents

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister agree that, through the ballot box and the Government's consultation process, the people of Scotland plainly rejected his plans for introducing school boards and provisions to opt out of local authority education? How does he justify introducing those wide-ranging changes in Scottish education—a specifically Scottish institution—without first seeking to gain the consent of the Scottish people?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not accept that the majority in Scotland are opposed to the school boards proposals. I believe that they will be welcome. Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what the leader of Strathclyde's education committee, Convener Malcolm Green, said the other day. In response to our opting-out proposals—[Interruption.] In response to my right hon. and learned Friend's hint that he might be considering opting out, he said:
It is now in our interest to redouble our efforts to create a good climate so that school boards realise the real value of the service they get from the authority and what they would miss if they do not have the authority to call upon.
Even the threat of opting out seems to produce benefits for parents in Scotland.

Hospitals (Competitive Tendering)

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with regard to competitive tendering in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since December 1987, when I asked health boards to re-examine the potential for competitive tendering they have been awarding contracts for catering and domestic services. By the beginning of November 39 contracts had been awarded, which will produce estimated savings over the next three years of over £14·5 million. A few more contracts are still to be awarded during this current round and thereafter boards will press ahead with further tendering.

Mr. Hind: Does my hon. Friend agree that competitive tendering in the Health Service in Scotland will help further to improve it, as indeed the Government have already done by increasing the amount of money spent in the Health Service by 30 per cent. since 1979 and increasing the number of consultants by 10 per cent. and the number of qualified nurses by 30 per cent.?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most significant aspects of the competitive tendering process, which Opposition Members used to call privatisation, is that 70 per cent. of contracts and the bulk of the savings have been achieved from in-house bids by the existing work forces looking at the way in which they provide the services, removing restrictive practices and overmanning, and seeing that every penny is directed to the interests of their patients.

Mr. Strang: Is it not an absolute scandal that more than 800 ancillary workers are being sacked by the Lothian health board to make way for private contractors? How does the Minister justify that action? Many of those women have given more than 20 years' dedicated service to the board. Is the Minister proud of the fact that they have been offered jobs inferior to those they have at present, sometimes involving less than half the number of hours that they currently work?

Mr. Forsyth: What was an absolute scandal was the lack of leadership shown by the trade union movement towards the people who were in that position. The trade unions refused to take part in the competitive tendering process, and in some cases the health boards had to bring in management consultants to assist the in-house work forces make their bids. The trade unions abandoned them. Despite that, many of those in-house bids were successful. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those who lost their employment because of the introduction of private contractors have in the main, as a matter of priority, been offered jobs by the private firms concerned. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) pointed out, they are fully entitled to any redundancy payments that may arise from their length of service.

Electoral Registers

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the anticipated percentage change in the numbers appearing on the electoral registers for 1988 and 1989.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No forecasts of the numbers on the electoral register are prepared. The projected population aged 17 and over shows an increase of 0·16 per cent. between 1988 and 1989.

Mr. Barnes: Is there not a considerable danger that, due to the operation of the poll tax in Scotland, the franchise will be considerably reduced, either in the coming year or by 1990, when the tax will begin to bite? In those circumstances, clearly there is a case for repealing the legislation, otherwise a future Government may have to introduce a Re-enfranchisement of the People Act.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I cannot accept that suggestion. On the basis of the population projections, a slight increase of about 11,000, or 0·28 per cent., might have been expected. The actual numbers show a fall of about 27,500, or 0·69 per cent. As to the reasons, no definite information is available on what part of that reduction might be attributable to any one factor, such as changes in practice by electoral registration officers or the removal of dual registrations.

Mr. Patnick: Can my hon. Friend explain what percentage of the Scottish electorate vote in local elections, and can he say what effect, if any, the community charge will have on voting patterns?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The percentage of the electorate voting in local elections is considerably below that for general elections—

Mr. Harry Ewing: What is it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asks me what exactly is the figure. To the best of my knowledge, it is less than 50 per cent.
This question relates directly to the electoral roll, and it is vitally important that it is kept separate from the community charge register; that it is separately prepared and maintained. That is the crux of the matter.

Pollution

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about pollution in the North sea.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since 1 July this year my right hon. and learned Friend has received representations about pollution in the North sea from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and from two organisations and five individuals.

Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that there is real concern about the level of pollution in the North sea up and down the whole of Scotland's east coast? Will he undertake on behalf of the Government to take proper steps to deal with that matter? In particular, will he give an undertaking to make the necessary capital allocation to Fife regional council, so that it can institute the Levenmouth sewage disposal scheme?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Fife regional council's allocation for water and sewerage has risen steadily from £5·5 million in 1985–86 to £7·7 million in 1988–89. Sixty to 70 per cent. of that figure relates to sewerage and sewage treatment. The allocation and guideline figures for 1989–90 and for 1990–91 are close to the council's own planned expenditure figures and are about 11 per cent. above the Scottish per capita average. Nevertheless, I take seriously the hon. and learned Gentleman's general point.

Dr. Godman: The Minister knows that our fishermen are deeply concerned about marine pollution. Does he agree that they would be encouraged if the Government were to instruct Occidental to remove completely from the sea bed what remains of the ill-fated Piper Alpha? Will the Minister kindly advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that section 5 of the Petroleum Act 1987 gives him precisely that power to impose upon Occidental a programme of complete removal?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentlman has raised a very interesting point, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Scottish Development Agency

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to have a meeting with the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters will be discussed.

Mr. Rifkind: I meet the chairman, board and chief executive of the agency on a regular basis to discuss issues of mutual interest. The next such meeting is due to take place early next year.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks and congratulations of the people of Scotland for the £92 million that he has won from the Treasury in addition to our budget? May I also congratulate him on increasing the budget of the Scottish Development Agency to in excess of £150 million, and making the Locate in Scotland bureau the most admired and efficient inward investment organisation in western Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Locate in Scotland has indeed been particularly successful over the past two or three years in attracting major new investment, and I am happy to pay tribute to it.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that Hall Russell shipyard was privatised by his Government and given its present ownership, and that he has a responsibility towards the work force? In an earlier reply his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Scottish Development Agency was standing by to help if necessary, but is the Secretary of State aware that a meeting held yesterday was not very helpful in the circumstances? Will he agree to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) and me today to discuss the position as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have given continual and considerable support to Hall Russell over the last year. I think he knows that from his own experience. Of course, if either he or his hon. Friend wishes to put any particular points to me, or to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who deals with such matters, we shall be happy to hear them.

Mr. Bill Walker: When he meets the chairman and other members of the Scottish Development Agency, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask them to remind the Scottish business community continually that, because of our so-called "open-door" policy, inward investment in Scotland has been of great help, bringing many jobs and great prosperity? Will he point to the danger that any kind of ring fence—any attempt to make Scotland isolationist—would have the same effect that it had in Quebec of driving jobs and investment away?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. It would not only deter investment in Scotland, but ultimately prevent Scottish companies from expanding elsewhere in the United Kingdom and overseas. The Scottish economy and that of the United Kingdom as a whole has always benefited from a willingness to employ sensible trading and investment policies of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred.

Health Boards (Funding)

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase the funding allocations to health boards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: An additional £12·7 million has been allocated to the National Health Service in Scotland to cover the extra cost of this year's nurses' clinical regrading. This brings the total of additional funding to cover the cost of review body pay awards to £104·7 million. After taking account of centrally funded expenditure, the additional sum distributed to health boards amounts to £93·4 million.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister take on board the fact that in the Highland health board area, and no doubt in every other health board area in Scotland, many nurses are deeply concerned about the proposed clinical regrading and will be appealing against the grades that they have been allocated? Will he also bear in mind that in the Highland health board area specifically, many patients,


particularly on Skye and the west coast and in the more rural or isolated communities, find it very difficult to cope with the changes in patient expenses for travelling to the centre of excellence in Raigmore hospital? Does he accept that that is a financially based problem for the health board in which he should have legitimate interest, with a view to further funding?

Mr. Forsyth: I have asked the Highland health board to reimburse patients for the costs incurred, and I regret that that was not done over a period of some months. I have asked the board to see that money is made available to any patients who were not treated fairly.
The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that under the Government nurses' pay has risen by 44 per cent. in real terms, while the Labour Government cut it by 20 per cent. If nurses are concerned about their grading, there is an appeal process. However, I am entitled to point out that the majority of sisters in hospitals in Scotland will have a pay rise of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. By any standard, that is a major contribution to the Health Service and a major recognition of their work. What a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to recognise that.

Scottish Development Agency

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and board of the agency on 16 May to discuss strategic issues which might be reflected in the agency's planning and budgeting process, and other matters.

Dr. Godman: I hope that when the Secretary of State next meets that estimable Greenockian, he will give him an assurance vis-a-vis the Hughes proposals that the SDA will continue in its present role in the Scottish economy. Is it not the case that the agency's area projects must be allowed to continue their valuable work? I remind the Minister that the Inverclyde initiative has financed and supported the Inverclyde training trust, which provides unemployed people with the skills that they will need in the enterprise zone. In that regard, the Inverclyde initiative and the Inverclyde training trust are surely an advance on Mr. Hughes and his proposals.

Mr. Lang: The Inverclyde enterprise zone and the Inverclyde initiative represent major initiatives by the Government, administered by the Scottish Development Agency. The budget for the agency next year is £150 million. We have made it clear that we see a continuing role for the agency within the exciting prospect of the new developments that we are contemplating under the Scottish Enterprise title.

Student Support (White Paper)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about future arrangements for student support.
Two years ago I set up a review of student support to examine how the maintenance needs of students may be met. We have the most generous system of student support in the western world, yet fewer of our young people enter higher education than in other European countries.
In our 1987 election manifesto we said that the purpose of the review was to improve the overall prospects of students so that more are encouraged to enter higher education. We specifically mentioned top-up loans to supplement grants as one way of bringing in new finance to help students and to relieve pressure on their parents.
The review has now been completed. We believe that the cost of student maintenance should be shared more equitably between students, their parents and the taxpayer. The Government are therefore today publishing a White Paper which sets out our proposals to introduce a scheme of top-up loans for students. We propose that from 1990, in addition to their grant, all home students in full-time higher education, except postgraduates, will be eligible for a top-up loan averaging over £400 in a full year.
This top-up loan facility will not be means-tested. Students will be able to take up as much or as little of it as they wish. The present grant arrangements will continue, but the overall levels of grant will be frozen in cash terms at their 1990 levels. As the grant also incorporates in most cases a parental contribution, this means that over time the average parent will be paying less in real terms. From 1990, students' total resources in grant and top-up loan will continue to be reviewed annually. Any uprating to reflect cost increases will be applied only to the top-up loan facility until the top-up loan has risen to the same level as the grant and parental contribution taken together.
The top-up loans will not bear a commercial rate of interest. Under the Government's proposals, top-up loans will be offered at a real interest rate of zero. The principal to be repaid will be uprated each year in line with inflation. Repayments will not start until the April after students complete their courses. Furthermore, repayments will be deferred when a graduate's income is low for any reason.
In 1985, the Government announced their intention to remove students from the social security system. Accordingly, the Government will end the general eligibility of students for social security benefits, whether or not they qualify for top-up loans. Benefits will, however, continue to be available for students who are disabled or single parents, and for students' dependants.
The level of the top-up loan will more than compensate the great majority of students for any loss of benefit. We estimate that the average level of social security benefit which would otherwise be claimed in 1990–91 is about £150. That compares with our loan facility of £420 in that year.
I recognise, however, that there may be local circumstances in which some further help may be needed, and postgraduate and further education students will not have access to loans. I will establish, therefore, three access funds, each of £5 million, to provide support on a discretionary basis to students in special financial need.

The funds will be for postgraduates, other students in higher education, and students in further education. Their operation will be reviewed after three years. They will be administered by the colleges, central institutions, polytechnics and universities throughout the United Kingdom; these institutions are best placed to understand the circumstances of their students.
The terms of the top-up loan scheme we are proposing are much more favourable than those of the borrowing on which many students rely at present. And instead of students having to rely on a social security system which was never designed for them, we shall be providing appropriate discretionary arrangements to help those in real need. This is a major step forward to achieving our target of more young people going into higher education.
In the Government's view, the top-up loan scheme is best administered by the financial institutions. I am now embarking on discussions with them. I shall also consult the funding councils and representatives of the local authorities and the higher and further education institutions about the other aspects of my proposals. The Government will bring forward a short Bill to allow the new regime to be introduced from autumn 1990.
These proposals represent an important step away from the dependency culture. Students will have a financial stake in their own future, and this will encourage greater economic awareness and self-reliance. The burden of student support on taxpayers and parents will be reduced. For the first time there will be a guaranteed extra source of income for students over and above their grants and parental contributions. By introducing top-up loans, we fulfil the undertaking we gave in our manifesto at the last election.

Mr. Jack Straw: This White Paper will reduce access to higher education, increase student and parental debt and deter many students from entering higher education. It proposes that knowledge be mortgaged in the future.
Is it not to the shame of the Secretary of State that this document contains no significant proposals for dealing with the real scandal—the numbers of young people who are forced out of education at 16-plus because of financial and other pressures? Is the Secretary of State aware, that when the grant system was reasonably funded in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a significant increase in access for lower income homes? Does he not know that the grant system gave many of us our only chance of higher education, and that he is now seeking to deny to others opportunities which even many Ministers had for themselves?
Is not the principal reason why working-class participation has leveled off in the 1980s the Government's appalling record of having cut student grants by 20 per cent. in real terms, increased the burden on parents and reduced the number of home students at university between 1980 and 1986?
The Secretary of State's hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State, told us last week that public expenditure constraints have been so severe that they
must inevitably lead to the progressive degradation
of our finest universities. I quote the hon. Gentleman's document.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is simply fraudulent to describe the loans as top-up loans? He is not topping up the grant system but pulling it down. Will he


confirm that he aims to replace at least half the grant and parental contribution with a loan? Will he confirm that the suggestion he made in the statement that parents will pay less in real terms is wholly misleading? If the parental contribution scale is frozen, many parents will have to pay significantly more. How does imposing such high burdens of debt on students and their parents square with the Prime Minister's injunction that people must be taught to live within their means?
Will the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that the loans will not be extended to vouchers and tuition fees, as proposed in the Jackson memorandum? Will not such loans hit women disproportionately hard? Why does the Secretary of State not have the guts to admit that, as the Jackson papers have already told us, in private the Government care nothing about increased access and that the whole policy has been driven by the Chancellor's obsession with cutting public spending? Was the Tory Reform Group not correct to say that a loan scheme would
reduce … access to higher education … lower standards and … produce a new class of poor graduates"?
Is it not true that the Secretary of State has failed to provide better opportunities for people at 16-plus, at 18-plus and in adulthood and has failed to improve the nation's skills? Instead of moving towards the 21st century, the proposals take us back to the 19th century. The Secretary of State has betrayed the nation's future.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will want to study the proposals in detail. In reply to the point that he made about saving Government expenditure, I draw his attention to the fact that the net cost of the scheme to the Treasury will be £850 million, so there will be an increase in Government expenditure. I refer the hon. Gentleman to annex E of the White Paper, which contains a table showing the amount of money that will build up for the rest of the century.
In defending the present system, the hon. Gentleman is defending the indefensible. He is defending a system that has actually restricted access to higher education. The previous Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported, not only restricted access but cut access to higher education and cut the number of students. The hon. Gentleman is defending a system in which 35 per cent. of students do not receive the full parental contribution.
Page 15 of the White Paper deals with parental contribution. We propose that from 1990, the grant plus parental contribution should be frozen and all increases applied to the loan top-up facility. The contribution scale will be changed to ensure that parental contribution does not rise to take up the entire amount. The chart shows that. After the scheme has been introduced, parents will be paying a substantially reduced amount to support their own children in higher education.
The hon. Gentleman was dismissive about the scheme. I remind him of the comments being made in higher education circles. The Times Higher Education Supplement—no supporter of the Government—says:
The grant or loan debate is virtually over. The case for loans now has an unstoppable momentum.
The hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, and to the papers this morning, that Ministers have benefited from the present system yet want to end the system from which they themselves have benefited. I had a means-tested award

which I supplemented from my own savings. I had saved money during my period of national service. I also worked during the vacations. Many of my generation would have been very glad indeed to have the facility of a top-up loan on the terms that I have announced.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the positive advantage of the system. It will provide a guaranteed extra source of income for students, over and above their present grants. It will reduce the burden on parents, who are already hard pressed. We are establishing three access funds and giving institutions the chance to tailor packages to attract more students.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the numbers staying on at 16. In three or four days' time, I shall be publishing more statistics showing that the number of children staying on at 16 has increased from 32 per cent. to 48 per cent., and that is the important point. The Government have increased the number of students in higher education by nearly 200,000 since we came to office. However, we cannot go much further by relying on the present system, and that is why we are committed to change.
The Labour party is committed to nothing in this matter. I consulted its manifesto this morning and it had nothing at all to say about students and student support. I challenge the hon. Member for Blackburn to tell us what his policy will be. He has been in charge of Labour's education policy for two years now and there is no such policy. Labour's education policy is a vacuum filled by Straw.

Mr. George Walden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the scheme, which is both sensitive and fair. Having said that, I should like to offer a little destructive criticism. At the centre of the debate is access. There are three aspects to access. The first aim is to get the mix of grants and loans right, and I think that my right hon. Friend has done that. The second and far more important aim is to improve the quality of schools, and my right hon. Friend is doing that. But there is a third aspect, to which I attach great importance, because the Government seem to want—

Hon. Members: What is the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) has some interest in this matter. However, there is to be a debate and I would ask him now to come to his question.

Mr. Walden: What is the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the third aspect of access? It seems that the Government wish to generate a new generation of media morons by their broadcasting policy. I do not understand how that fits in with what my right hon. Friend proposes for the good of access or with what he is doing for schools. That is far more important for the promotion of social fairness than the mere mechanics of loans or grants.

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did on the student review when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I also thank him for his support for the scheme that I have announced and for the reforms that we have been introducing in the education system. On my hon. Friend's last point about media morons, I do not believe that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the reform of television will necessarily lead to falling


standards. There are various ways in which standards can be improved within those proposals, but that goes rather wider than the matters in my statement.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State not admit that his announcement reveals that the Thatcherite monetarist wolf has at last been admitted to the Department of Education and Science, and that the hidden agenda is now revealed? Will the Secretary of State tell us what he proposes to do about tuition fees—the other item for which students may be asked to pay in the coming months?
Is it true that students will no longer even be statistics for social security purposes and that they will not qualify—except for discretionary awards—no matter how low their income? Why did the Secretary of State say not one word about increasing access or about the fact that the proposal represents the biggest disincentive to students from poor and working families to go on to higher education that has been announced since the second world war?

Mr. Baker: I should perhaps have replied to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the question of tuition fees. I said at Question Time yesterday:
There is a great debate on the funding of higher education, both here and overseas. There is also a growing desire among institutions for greater independence. The Government have no proposals for students in receipt of mandatory awards to contribute part of their tuition fees, but higher education institutions have a legal right to charge tuition fees, and to prevent them doing so would require legislation."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 155.]
I have made it clear that I wish to see that debate mature and develop. It has nothing to do with the White Paper that I have put before the House.
With regard to access, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must address the fact that other countries with schemes of grants and loans have very much higher records of access than we have. One of the features of our education system is that student support in the United Kingdom is uniquely high. At the 1984 prices given in the White Paper, it is £750 per student in the United Kingdom compared with £70 in West Germany, £180 in France and £30 in Japan. Yet in all those countries a higher proportion of children, especially from blue-collar families, go into higher education than is the case in this country.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed, especially by the 70 per cent. of parents who currently make a parental contribution? Will he confirm that the loan will be in addition to the grant prevailing at the time of its inception? With regard to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that children from blue-collar families will be dissuaded from taking up higher education, I do not take that view, but I should be pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's comments on that point.

Mr. Baker: I re-emphasise what I said to the hon. Member for Blackburn. We are reducing the burden on parents and taxpayers. Chart 8 on page 15 of the White Paper sets out the effect. Over time, the parental contributions will come down by nearly half. That will be a great help to many hard-pressed parents and their children.
I confirm that the loans will be in addition to the grants. I have already announced the increase in grant for 1989–90. There will be a further increase in 1990–91. That level will then be frozen and the loans will be on top of that.
On the very important question of access, I have already said that it is good news for this country that a higher proportion of children of 16–plus are staying on at school. That must be welcomed in all parts of the House. It is a very significant increase—up to 47 per cent. of the age band for 1988. That increase is good news and it has grown strongly in the past few years. In terms of access to higher education, socio-economic groups C2, D and E constitute 61 per cent. of the 18-year-old population in this country but supply only 21 per cent. of university entrants and 27 per cent. of polytechnic entrants. For the universities, that proportion has remained static since about 1970, so the present system, to which the Labour party is wedded, has not increased the proportion from blue-collar families. That is what we want to do and I believe that that is what we shall achieve.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I am disappointed with the White Paper. Is the Secretary of State increasing access to education or merely to debt? If he were really interested in increasing access to education, he would have addressed the problem of mature women who are trying to get back into higher education and have to use the part-time and discretionary grant award scheme. Listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that no attention whatever has been paid to that aspect. For those women, the loss of all social security benefits and entitlements will be a major—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have said, there will be a debate on this. Will the hon. Lady please ask a question?

Ms. Armstrong: What real hope can the Secretary of State offer to mature women seeking to get back into higher education?

Mr. Baker: A growing number of mature students, both male and female, are now entering higher education. Many of them do not qualify for any sort of grant or, for one reason or another, for the various benefits of the social security system. I confirm that they will be eligible to participate in the loan scheme.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is it not true that despite the generosity of our grant system, the proportion of university entrants from the unskilled, manual worker category has steadily fallen? Does not the vast bulk of the higher education world know full well that no Government could indefinitely continue with the current system?
Although my hon. Friend's scheme is most welcome, will he take it further and abolish all parental contribution and make access to loans available to that critical group of part-time university and polytechnic students who currently receive no state help?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that some people will say that the scheme goes too far and others that it does not go far enough, so I probably have it about right.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, but he is not quite right. There has not been a decline in the number of students from blue-collar families. As the White Paper shows, the number has risen slightly. The survey carried


out for the Robbins committee shows that 3·2 per cent. of 21-year-olds whose parents were in manual occupations had entered full-time higher education by 1962. The comparable figure for 1985 was 6·9 per cent. It is a disappointing rate of progress over the years and, in some of our universities, it has not moved at all. Any increase has been mainly in polytechnics.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Does the Secretary of State accept that many caring parents will not want their children to begin life with crippling debts around their necks and, instead, will make up the contributions? Will he admit that he is merely passing contributions on to parents at a time of crippling mortgage rates and a crisis in the rented housing sector? Will not many people start life with a disadvantage because his scheme will deter those in the lowest income groups from entering higher education? When the right hon. Gentleman talks about dependency, does he mean cutting income for the poor and cutting taxes for the rich? Is that his idea of the dependency culture?

Mr. Baker: I do not believe that parents will rush in to make up the loans for their children because about one third of parents already do not take up the full parental contribution. The children of those parents will be the major beneficiaries of the loan scheme.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Is he aware that the nearest university to Europe—the university of Kent at Canterbury—is to have a seminar on this very subject next week? I shall regard it as a privilege to put the case for removing a proportion of the burden that currently rests on taxpayers—many of whom are poor people—and placing it on those of us who were privileged to enjoy university education.

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. The whole essence of the scheme is that the burden on the taxpayer and the parent will be reduced.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Having been a teacher for 27 years, may I assure the right hon. Gentleman that young people stay at school after the age of 16 because they have no other choice? There are no jobs for them. May I lodge a protest about the scheme on behalf of the poor families in Northern Ireland, which has the highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom? They cannot afford to support their able children so that they can benefit from education and escape from the poverty trap. Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the special difficulties and needs of students in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Baker: The proposals that I have announced relate to the whole of the United Kingdom. Many students are prepared to make an investment in their future. When graduates leave college, in whatever part of the United Kingdom, they go into much better and higher paid jobs than do many others in our society. The average is very much higher. An analysis in the White Paper shows the return to an individual student from engaging in higher education to be about 25 per cent., which is a very high return. We are inviting students to make an investment in their future and I believe that many will do so, from whatever part of the United Kingdom they might come.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that practically every other country in the free world has a loans system? Will he consider introducing a travel loan system so that Labour education spokesmen can visit Sweden, which is by no means a Conservative country and has an excellent loans system?

Mr. Baker: The Swedish system started out in the way that I am proposing today. In the 1960s the Swedish Government decided to freeze grants, as I propose today, and to introduce top-up loans. They let that system run on to the present system where only 10 per cent. of the expenditure is on grants and 90 per cent. on loans. They went too far and are now increasing the grant element back to 30 per cent. We are proposing that grant and loans together—[Interruption.] Let me answer one point at a time—will balance out at 50:50. Student support will be provided half by loans and half by grants and parental contribution. The default rate in Sweden is about 1 per cent.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is always interesting to hear the Secretary of State pretending that a draconian cut in education is progressive. Is it not a fact that the serried ranks behind him, due to the riches of mummy and daddy, are bound to—[Interruption.] That is the reality. Is it not a fact that our record on young people staying on in education after 16 compared with that of the great countries of the world is appalling? We are at the bottom by miles. Japan and the United States have twice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions, please.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman talked about our position in relation to the great countries of the world. I remind him that in France the percentage of university entrants from blue collar groups rose from 23 per cent. in 1975 to 30 per cent. in 1980, although the cost of higher education in our country, where we have had no increase, is four times greater than the cost in France.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: As one who has expressed concern over the way in which the present system has failed to meet the needs of students, may I welcome the fact that the Government have grasped this nettle? Nevertheless, we are concerned about access and the effects that increasing debt may have on students. I was interested in my right hon. Friend's comments on the conversations that he will have with banks and institutions. We are bothered about the mechanics of the scheme. Can he tell the House how he expects these conversations to go and to what purpose?

Mr. Baker: The Government firmly believe that it would be better for the scheme to be operated by banks, building societies and other financial institutions than by some Government quango. I am now entering into discussions about that, but there are certain parameters to any scheme that I set out. The obligation to repay the loan should spend on the income of the graduate. That is to say that a student who has a low-paid job on graduation should have his obligation to repay the loan suspended until he reaches a certain pay level. That part of the paper is rather green and there are various suggested alternatives. That is particularly important for women graduates who get married and have no source of income.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support.
Secondly, the loan will be written off and cancelled either 25 years after it has been incurred or if the person has reached 50. Naturally there will be no recovery of loan should a graduate die. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We shall cancel it out. Thirdly, the obligation to repay the loan will not start until the April after the student has finished the course, which will probably be the previous June.

Mr. David Blunkett: Is the Secretary of State saying that longevity or the ability to string out repayment will be an advantage in not repaying the loan? Is he telling the House that taxpayers would rather subsidise financial institutions through lower interest rates than invest directly in the future of both young people and this country? Far from a culture of access, this is a culture of Visa and American Express.

Mr. Baker: It is the student who will be subsidised in that the student will not have to pay the going commercial rate for the loan, which students must pay on their overdrafts at present. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. It is part and parcel of the scheme. I should add that if there has been a deliberate attempt to string out a loan or to default, it will not be cancelled when the person reaches 50. We thought that that proposal would make the scheme slightly more attractive.

Sir Peter Hordern: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the repayment of the loans will be less at the beginning and greater towards the end? Will he confirm that the net cost of the scheme to the Government will be greater than the present one?

Mr. Baker: I have already made it clear that the scheme will involve considerable cost in the initial years. My hon. Friend asked about the length of repayment. On page 16 of the White Paper we set out a provisional scheme for how repayment builds up. We envisage that for £1,396 over three years there will be a repayment of about £300 a year for about five years. It is possible that repayment of larger debts will take longer than five years. We do not rule out the possibility of offering a discount for prompt payment, as offered under the German scheme. That is part of the discussions that we shall have with the banks.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to increase the uptake of higher education, particularly among lower income students, the staying-on rate at 16 must be markedly increased? Will he consider introducing a means-tested benefit for 16 to 19–year-olds to encourage children from lower income families to stay on at school rather than leave to supplement their own and their family's income?

Mr. Baker: That proposal was put forward by the hon. Lady's party at the general election, and in the past the Labour party has toyed with a payment at 16. First, it is expensive. Unmeans-tested, it would cost £700 million to £800 million; means-tested, it would be less. Secondly, the idea of means-testing boys and girls at school, with some receiving payment and others not, is unattractive.
The real argument against the hon. Lady's case is that we are already getting more young people staying on at 16. The rise to 48 per cent. of that age band is encouraging and is happening now.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his commitment to equality of opportunity of access for all to higher education is underlined by the fact that there is no tuition fees element in this package? Will he ensure that there is none in future? Can he confirm that the average student in higher education today borrows about £340, so we already have loans on that basis? Can we look for some considerable improvement in the student grant in 1990 when this new scheme is introduced?

Mr. Baker: We published a profile of student expenditure in the White Paper and I recall that that is at present about the average level of a student overdraft.
My hon. Friend asked about access. I remind him that many years ago, in his famous report, Robbins stated that when many parents were only just beginning to acquire the habit of contemplating higher education for such of their children, especially girls, as were capable of benefiting by it, it was probable that a system of loan would have an undesirable disincentive effect. But that if as time went on the habit became more firmly established, the arguments of justice and distribution and of the advantage of encouraging individual responsibilty might come to weigh more heavily and lead to some experiment in that direction.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that in areas of high unemployment and low income—where no holiday jobs are available and where there may be a cultural reluctance to take on loans —as a result of today's statement students who have the ability to go on to higher education will not do so? How does that encourage the development of education?

Mr. Baker: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the blue pages at the back of the White Paper, where there is an analysis of the reluctance of various socio-economic groups to take on loans. I remind the hon. Gentleman that various groups of students who do not benefit from grants will do so from the loan. At present, 50,000 students at universities or polytechnics doing mainly professional courses of one sort or another do not qualify for a grant, but they will for the loan. Students who do not qualify for awards of any sort will benefit from the loan. Students whose awards are abated and whose parents do not make up the full amount will benefit from the loan. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the three access funds that I am establishing. I am giving money to universities, polytechnics and colleges so that they can devise various access courses and packages, scholarships and bursaries of their own.

Mr. David Curry: Is not one of the principal differences between our system of higher education and that of the continent the fact that many students on the continent attend local universities, live at home and are maintained by their parents? Is that one of the reasons why there is greater access of blue collar workers on the continent? As our present system has failed in that regard, is it not good sense to change it?

Mr. Baker: I do not think that that change will be implicit in the scheme. The pattern here may change over the years, but I confirm that on the continent there is a greater pattern of students studying at their local


universities. Students here shop around the country, which substantially adds to the expense of our higher education system.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the major reasons for the failure to open access to unskilled children is the way in which the grant has been cut since the end of the 1960s? Will he look at the access figures for unskilled children for 1955, 1965, 1975 and 1985 and note what has happened as the value of the grant has decreased? How much in real terms will the grant be worth to each student in 2027—the last year for which we have figures in the White Paper—compared with its value in 1962, when I began my university career?

Mr. Baker: I should need some notice to give figures for the period between 1962 and 2027. I shall endeavour to extract them for the hon. Gentleman and write to him. The hon. Gentleman asked me to make various comparisons between the years and I shall do so, but I am sure that the pattern will show that access has remained static. I remind him that under the present system we spend more on student support from public funds than comparable countries. We spend more per student, more as a proportion of higher education current expenditure, more as a proportion of total current expenditure for education and more as a proportion of gross national product. We are spending much more than other countries through a combination of grants and loans, which attract more people into higher education.

Dame E. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am delighted that he has so carefully safeguarded the position of women who marry, have children and therefore do not repay the loan until they are in receipt of a reasonable income? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the participation rate of manual and blue collar workers would be infinitely higher if the Labour party had not destroyed grammar schools, from which many members of the Shadow Cabinet benefited before entering university?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend broadens the argument rather considerably. I do not want to go back into history as I prefer to talk about the future. I am sure that the various changes we are putting in hand through the Education Reform Act 1988 will substantially improve the quality of education in the future.

Several Hon Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the other business on the Order Paper. We shall be dealing with Lords amendments to two important Bills and the House need only look at the selection list to appreciate how much work we have to do. I shall allow questions to continue for another 15 minutes, but I ask hon. Members to keep their questions as brief as possible so that brief answers may be given.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment has been made of the effects of this scheme on teacher recruitment? As the vice-chancellors are extremely concerned about the quality of teacher recruitment, may we have the names of the vice-chancellors who support the scheme?

Mr. Baker: As far as I know, no vice-chancellor has seen the scheme because it has been prepared and made available to the House today. What the hon. Gentleman might be referring to are the views that have been advanced by various vice-chancellors in the continuing debate on the funding of higher education institutions. We are reviewing teacher recruitment. Clearly it is one of my responsibilities to ensure a good flow of teachers over the coming decade for the introduction of the national curriculum. We shall bring forward proposals to deal with that.

Mr. David Madel: Do the changes in student support mean that the Government think that there should be a change in the length of university terms and degree courses? If that happened, it would have an impact on student finances.

Mr. Baker: That is a separate matter. It is interesting that higher education institutions are more flexible about the nature of a degree course. The traditional degree course of three years for one subject has given way in many universities to combined subjects. I visited a university last week that is combining with its local polytechnic to have a master of science course over four years. That is an interesting development whereby students can cross from polytechnic to university on a combined course. I want to encourage such an experiment, not chill it off. There is nothing implicit in the scheme about the length of degree courses.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I have known the Secretary of State for 18 years. Is he aware that it is pathetic to listen to him introducing such extreme Right-wing ideas on higher education? The Secretary of State mentioned loans, but does he understand that many students who will need the loan will not ask for it because they will know full well that they will be unable to repay it? However the Secretary of State dresses up this scheme, it is a deliberate attempt to exclude from university education youngsters in lower socio-economic groups. When three years ago at the Tory party conference the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the Tory party was determined to write off the education prospects of generations of youngsters, he could never have dreamt for a minute that his former parliamentary private secretary would introduce such a scheme.

Mr. Baker: I am astonished to hear these proposals described as extreme Right-wing ideas. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Socialist Sweden did this in the 1960s? Does he appreciate that the Labour Government of Australia are going much further than this scheme and are introducing a tax on students for their tuition fees? Does he realise that the Labour Government of New Zealand are proposing a tax on students? Many people will say that my scheme is rather modest compared to those proposals.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome this reform of the system—despite expenditure five times greater than the European average, it has failed with regard to blue collar access—but does the Secretary of State agree that it will not only improve access but give students more investment in their education, from which they will benefit financially in the future, and will lead to


a more flexible form of funding for continuous higher education throughout life, which will become more important in the future?

M. Baker: The flexibility point is important. We are leaving it to the institutions, universities and polytechnics to decide how they should operate their access funds. That will introduce a degree of flexibility. I hope that many imaginative ideas will come forward from them on tailored packages of support for particular types of courses and particular students. I am sure that that will lead to more of our young people going into our colleges, polytechnics and universities.

Mr. George Galloway: It would appear that, even in the damper regions of the Department of Education and Science, the barbarians are through the gates. This is a Government who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Is the Secretary of State aware that there are already student loans, and they are called bank overdrafts? Hundreds of student constituents of mine are up to their ears in debt. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Robbins principle. Is he happy that he will go down in history as having replaced the Robbins principle with the begging bowl Baker principle of higher education?

Mr. Baker: I quoted from Robbins, who clearly foresaw the introduction of a loan. The hon. Gentleman attacks our proposals. What is the Labour party's policy?

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not fair to say that the opportunity of top-up loans will further enhance the opportunities for students by making them more responsible for their actions, more appreciative of the opportunity to go to university or college and, most of all, more selective in their choice of course so that it can match the job market when they come out of college or university?

Mr. Baker: I could not have put it better myself. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): The hon. Lady means that only the rich will have a choice.

Mr. Baker: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I made my statement and answered most of the questions, so I ask him to read the White Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East(Mrs. Hicks)said that we are inviting students to make a financial investment in their future. It is right to do that, because those students will move into substantially higher paid jobs. With greater responsibility, they can much better decide the kind of courses they want to undertake. We want to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible for them to have a wider choice.

Mr. Terry Fields: Would it not have been more honest for the Secretary of State to say, "The message for working class families and youth is that there is no future in our system. We do not need an educated working class, so we are putting barriers on access to higher education for working people"? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that youth and students will fight him, and other Labour Members and I will join them to defeat this class-based legislation?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that there is no meaningless barricade that is not filled by the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to compare the recruitment figures for the Liverpool polytechnic and the Liverpool university under the Conservatives with the recruitment figures under Labour.

Mr. Tim Janman: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing forward these long overdue proposals. Does he agree that the current cost of the many thousands of students who take out overdraft facilities because their parents do not make up the contribution is far higher than the zero real interest rate which my right hon. Friend has announced in what essentially amounts to a formalisation of the current system? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement will increase access? Can he quantify that increase in access? Finally—

Mr. Speaker: Not "finally". In fairness to other hon. Members, three questions are enough.

Mr. Baker: As I have said, since 1979 there has been a substantial increase of nearly 200,000 students. We have set ourselves a target of increasing, in the lifetime of this Parliament, by 50,000 the number of higher education students. I think that we are likely to reach that target this year, two years before the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is that not good news? Is not the Labour party glad to know that there will be 50,000 more students in higher education and there are still two more glorious years to run, perhaps three—I am not announcing the date of the election.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) for his support. My proposal will certainly lead to more access. We have set ourselves high targets, and we shall reach them.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The Secretary of State will recall that he recently visited Leicester university. He will remember that for two reasons: first, he was hit by a very large pot of yogurt—which I deplore, because it was a waste of yogurt—and, secondly, he had a meeting with the president of the students union in Leicester, who spoke about the fact that students at Leicester university were suffering from the low grants. Given the Government's obsession with polling and market research, can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single piece of research that will show hon. Members the likely outcome of these proposals on access to further education? How many student organisations did the right hon. Gentleman consult before he wrote these proposals?

Mr. Baker: I was delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman in Leicester, but I am sorry that he was not walking with me shoulder and shoulder through his supporters.
I have answered several times the point about access. I confidently expect that the numbers in higher education, in polytechnics and universities will increase because of our proposals. The numbers have increased consistently over the past few years and will continue to increase. We are providing a possibility of greater resources for the great bulk of students.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement generally which will leave the overwhelming majority of students far better off. I particularly welcome the proposal for access funds which will be set up to provide for the hard cases which are


inevitable. My right hon. Friend said that these funds would be administered by the higher education institutions. Within what criteria established by my right hon. Friend will those institutions administer those funds?

Mr. Baker: I want to give only the broadest guidance because I want to leave as much discretion as possible in the institutions' hands. It is a novel feature of our proposals that we regularly provide the universities and institutions with funds of their own, whereby they can provide their own scholarships and bursaries and tailor-make certain proposals for particular types of courses for particular students. Universities used to do that in the past to some extent and some universities around the world do it. Under the American system, where there is much more access throughout the social classes, it is common for universities and colleges to have quite large funds of this sort so that they can tailor particular proposals for particular students. It is for individual students to approach individual universities and polytechnics and come forward with their own proposals. I am sure that eventually Labour Front-Bench Members will support that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the reason why well-heeled Conservatives want these changes the fact that many of them are making maximum contributions, and they want to save money? That is what Tories have told me. Is it not true that, under the Government's scheme, Tories will have an excuse for saying to their kids, "Take out a loan and fund your education, because I shall not pay for you any more"? This is the real reason behind the proposals: the Conservatives do not want to dig into their pockets.

Mr. Baker: That is an extraordinary proposition. The hon. Gentleman has supported a Government whose actions led to parents digging into their own pockets. The grant was means-tested under Labour and it is means-tested now. This means that a third of parents do not dig into their pockets and make a full parental contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) rightly said, this loan facility means that young people will be able to make up the amount which is not made up by their parents.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed, especially by those on non-mandatory courses? Will he therefore ignore the brickbats made of straw? Does he recognise that most people realise that access to higher education greatly increases a person's earning capacity and that most people would be pleased to be offered a loan at a nil rate of interest?

Mr. Baker: I am sure of that and I am sure that there will be a substantial take-up of the loan. I completely agree with my hon. Friend's earlier comments. The loan will be taken up. Many people will realise that they are making a good investment in their future. I confirm that graduates' earnings are much higher than average earnings.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that he is defenceless against the accusation that these proposals are highly detrimental to the interests of the children of working-class families?

Does he also appreciate that even Korea, in percentage terms, trains more of its youngsters than we do? When will the Secretary of State and his Government recognise that if we are to build a successful economy we need to train all our bright youngsters, irrespective of social considerations?

Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he has to address the question why we have such a substantially expensive system of student support that is not achieving the objectives that he wants. Countries that have much less expensive systems of student support have a very much higher proportion of students in higher education. Only 10 per cent. of that age group in the United Kingdom study for degrees, compared with 20 per cent. in France, 15 per cent. in West Germany and 25 per cent. in Japan. All those countries have some system of grants and loans.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend knows that there is much greater access to higher education in the United States and that many students work their way through college. Will he put into perspective the proposed loans? Almost the first thing that most students do when they graduate in this country and get a job is to go to their bank manager for a loan to buy a car.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that that happens. My hon. Friend's comparison with America is interesting. There is a very much higher level of borrowing at all levels of access in America. It has led to many more young people in America going to college; that is one of the successes of the American system. I want many more of our young people to go to college, and I am quite sure that that will be the result of the proposals that I have announced.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I can see no mention in the White Paper of the number of additional students that the Secretary of State thinks will gain access to higher education. Can he tell the House how many students he thinks there will be as a result of his proposals?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that he is taking away the right of students to claim housing benefit, unemployment benefit and income support? Will he admit that for very many students that means that they will be £275 worse off and that the loan will only just about cover their benefits? Is he not setting up a special student social fund under which students will have to repay benefits rather than receive them? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, while better-off parents will contribute rather less, those on lower incomes will progressively have to make a greater contribution to student grants?
In the Government's plastic society, far from students getting their flexible friend, the Baker card will be a visa to 25 years of debt. It will certainly not be a passport to greater access.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman's final remarks were a trifle strained and a trifle contrived. As for his important questions about disentitlement to benefit, our estimate is that in 1991 the average, spread over all students, that they will claim in benefits will be about £150. However, we estimate that about 50 per cent. of students will not claim. For those students who do claim, our estimate is that the figure comes out at just below £300. The figure that we are recommending for the first year is an additional loan


facility of £420. For the second year, it will be £504. They will have greater access to an even larger amount of money.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take points of order now; I am on my feet. May I say to those hon. Members whom I have not called that I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate this matter—possibly during the debate on the Loyal Address—when I shall give them precedence.

Earth Tremors (Stoke-on-Trent)

Ms. Joan Walley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for a full and thorough investigation into recent earth tremors in the north part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
This week's earth tremor affected people living in Smallthorne, Bradeley, High lane, Mill Hill and Chell. It measured a magnitude of 1·9 on the Richter scale and is the third tremor—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Walley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This may not be an earth-shattering matter for hon. Members, but it is certainly a matter of great concern to people in my constituency.
It is the third tremor in this small area in the last 12 months and it is the second in less than three weeks. Everybody who is affected is quite right to be distressed and concerned about the potential damage to their properties, and even more so when it appears that a pattern of earth tremors is now emerging.
We should be given every assistance to make sure that the area is being properly monitored and that the necessary national resources and equipment are on hand to enable the city of Stoke-on-Trent, the university of Keele's geography department and local residents to understand the extent of the problem and to establish whether there is a link between the current series of earth tremors and the abandonment of deep pit mining and changed Coal Board practices in that area.
The British Geological Survey is currently unable to provide Stoke-on-Trent with the detailed kind of monitoring that is required. I understand that the university of Keele has not yet received funding from the University Grants Committee to deploy seismic stations in the north part of Stoke-on-Trent.
Given the long history of earth tremors in this area, the lack of adequate monitoring equipment, which once was available in Stoke-on-Trent and has now been taken away, and the genuine concern and distress felt by people who are affected, detailed monitoring and analysis is urgently needed. Therefore I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order that we can have a full debate to make sure that these issues are immediately addressed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for a full and thorough investigation into recent earth tremors in the north part of the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. Lady has said, but I do not consider that the matter she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope, however, that she will have other opportunities to bring the matter before the House.

Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, referring to the behaviour of the Minister for Sport. He has treated this House with contemptuous disregard, both for its rights and its purposes, for the third time is succession, in making, or seeking to make, statements of great importance outside this House. He held a press conference at 3·30 pm when he should have been making an oral statement to the House on the subject of his football membership scheme.
Matters of considerable substance are involved in the Minister's statement. For example, it contains a completely unprecedented constitutional point. According to the scheme, the Minister for Sport proposes to insist that Scottish football supporters attending matches at Wembley or elsewhere in England should be required to register with an English or Welsh football club. That is an unparalleled proposal, it insults all Scottish football supporters and it will be completely impracticable.
The proposal also requires information about convicted persons to be supplied by the courts, fed into computers and used at football matches. You will know Mr. Speaker, that under British law it is unlawful for the courts or the police to provide information about convictions. That makes the Minister's proposals ludicrous in the extreme.
The proposals will also infringe civil liberties. The report contains nine objections from the football authorities. In those circumstances, I submit that the Minister should be required to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members look at the Order Paper, they will see what business is before us. I see no hope of any time being available for a statement to be made except perhaps very late tomorrow morning. Whether a Minister makes a statement to the House about any subject is not a matter for me. I know that hon. Members often feel annoyed that certain information is imparted by way of written answer rather than by oral statement, but statements eat into the time allotted to the main business of the day; and the Government must take responsibility for deciding how many there should be.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a constitutional question. There has been absolutely no consultation in Scotland or any suggestion that this document has anything to do with Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that this is not a matter for me.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: As long as it is not on this matter.

Mr. Carlisle: My point of order concerns the courtesies of the House. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook spoke about the courtesies of the House and the Minister making a statement. I seek your guidance in regard to hon. Members obtaining a document by deceit, and going to sporting conferences. The right hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What documents hon. Members get hold of is not a matter of order in the Chamber. I have already ruled that whether a statement is made is not a matter for me. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has been here a good length of time. He must not disobey the Chair. I cannot take further points of order on this matter.

Mr. Carlisle: My point of order is not to do with the statement. It concerns whether it is in order for Privy Councillors to have documents such as this while they are embargoed and to publish and talk about them before the House has had an opportunity to hear what they are about. That is what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did today. He discussed and criticised this excellent document before it was announced in the House. Is it right that the House should not be given an opportunity to discuss the document first? Is it not a discourtesy to the House that the document has been taken and discussed before the Minister has had an opportunity even to answer the question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Whether hon. Members get documents and how they get them is not a matter of order in the Chamber. I repeat that this is not a matter for me.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was quite clear to every hon. Member that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) obtained the report by deceit. I do not know whether that makes the Minister a liar as it was the Minister who supplied my right hon. Friend with the copy that he has with him. We would like you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. Member for Luton, North to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Luton, North, who I think cheated on his point of order, used the word "deceit". I thought that he was referring to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Will he please withdraw the allegation?

Mr. John Carlisle: I consider it deceitful, but—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has expressed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Member one chance to withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Carlisle: I withdraw the allegation of deceit.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an entirely different matter and I do not think that it will raise hackles as much as the previous one. It is about what happened last night at about 9.50 pm. Madam Deputy Speaker took your place in the Chair. There was a likelihood of a closure motion, but it never materialised. The Ayes were called because nobody else stood up and there was no call. That appears in column 261 of Hansard for last night. Madam Deputy Speaker, as Seond Deputy Chairman said:
As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
There was no answer. She continued,
To the contrary No.
At column 262, Hansard records:

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it." At that point, we had defeated the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. The Tories realised that they had made a grave error. They had not shouted, but then they decided to shout, "Aye." which is recorded in Hansard accordingly. They were too late. Hansard continues:

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; vol. 140, c. 261–2.]
Since I have been a Member of Parliament, Governments of both parties have made mistakes, but on each occasion, as with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill some time ago, if a mistake was made, the thing had to stand. In those circumstances, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would have had to start from scratch in the next Parliament, not halfway through its proceedings, as at present.
The Clerks told me last night that they were a bit unsure themselves, so I went to hear the tapes. They are quite clear. Before you make a decision, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to hear them. They are much clearer than I expected, bearing in mind the noise that can occur when a Division is being called for. There is not a single whisper of an Aye, but there are distinct Noes. We can all get copies of the tapes nowadays.
The Associated British Ports(No. 2) Bill is important, and it was strongly contested by Opposition Members. We even had one or two Conservative Members support us in the Lobby. We cannot be messing about with procedures in the House when a Division is called and the Government make a mistake, or those who are promoting a Bill make a mistake. There is a question about who should have done the shouting, but the plain fact is that they did not deliver the voices. I am therefore asking you to listen to the tapes, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will find that Hansard has recorded it absolutely accurately. I believe that, in accordance with previous procedure, the Bill's progress should be halted and that if it is to go further, it should have to start again in the next Parliament.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please. I think that it has all been said.

Mr. Redmond: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I request your understanding, tolerance and guidance, because I am a relatively new Member and I am unsure of our

procedures. I am in no way criticising Madam Deputy Speaker for her error. We are all human and can honestly make mistakes. The rules of the House, however, are clearly laid down. If Conservative Members failed to follow the House's procedures correctly, the House's decision must still stand. Although Madam Deputy Speaker made a mistake, it is incumbent on you to consider what has been said and to rule that the Opposition were correct and that the Bill fell.

Mr. Speaker: I always look at Hansard, particularly when I have not been in the Chair. I have looked at Hansard to see what went on last night. I see that a point of order on this very matter was raised at the time by the Shadow Leader of the House and that the Deputy Speaker dealt with it. Thereafter, no further complaints were raised on the matter. If there was any concern about the matter, it should certainly have been raised last night, not now.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot back-deal. There was an opportunity to deal with the matter last night. We cannot back-deal on a matter which the House has already resolved.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This seems quite extraordinary to me. We raised a point of order at the time. We registered our concern and suggested that if the tapes were consulted they would show that what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said is correct. I do this in no spirit of criticism of the Deputy Speaker, but this seems extraordinary to us. We raised the issue and raised the question of the tapes. They could not be heard immediately after the Division or while it was going on. Hon. Members have listened to the tapes and think that it would be right and proper for you to listen to them as well, as they bear out what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has asserted.

Mr. Speaker: The tapes are not the official record. I have regard to what appears in Hansard. I have no authority to overrule any decision which has been taken by the occupant of the Chair, and I do not propose to do so.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to overrule an earlier decision.

Mr. Cryer: You seem to be implying, Mr. Speaker, that there must be a range of points of order to give testimony and strength to what we are saying. Since the Division took place last night, this is the first time that you have been in the Chair and the first opportunity that we have had to raise points of order. The point was made clearly last night and we thought that it had been registered. This is the first moment that we have been in a position to raise the matter again because it is the first opportunity that we have to refer you to the record in Hansard. Like you, Mr. Speaker, we recognise that the House depends on Hansard. If a mistake has been made and that fact is demonstrated in Hansard, there must be some facility for rectifying the mistake and the decision that was taken by the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to order that. The matter should have been pursued last night—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was."]—with the occupant of the Chair. It was so raised and it was dealt with. I have no power to overrule that.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, after Madam Deputy Speaker said
I think that the Noes have it",
there appears the following line:
Hon. Members: Aye.—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]
Surely that solves the problem.

Mr. Speaker: I have read Hansard, and I see nothing out of order on this issue. Ten-minute Bill—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cohen. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order on the issue with which I have dealt. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to what has been printed in yesterday's Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with that. Ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cryer: It is an extremely important issue.

Mr. Speaker: It may be, but there is no precedent. It would be a precedent if I ruled on something which the Deputy Speaker did last night. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We must not let him get away with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Who must not let him get away with it?

Mr. Skinner: It is here in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: I have read yesterday's edition of Hansard.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear what the hon. Member for Workington has to say, and that will be it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If you read what the Deputy Speaker said, Mr. Speaker, you will find that she did not reply to the point of order which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). She said:
Order. If I am to be heard, I ask hon. Members to listen."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140. c. 262.]

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order has not been responded to by the Chair. I believe that we have a right to a full and considered response from you, Mr. Speaker. If that cannot be done today, perhaps you will be able to respond tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Deputy Speaker put the Question again and collected the voices. That is what Hansard clearly shows. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it does not show that she collected the voices again. Ten-minute Bill. Mr. Harry Cohen.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rules of the House are fairly clear, and they are intended to protect hon. Members on both sides of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, and the other occupants of the Chair do your level best to ensure that they provide that protection. Yesterday, it was clear that there was discontent about the nature of private Member's Bills and the way in which they pass through the House with Government support. There was high feeling on both sides of the House.
Whatever there was in terms of feeling, however, there were no voices to be heard at the appropriate time. I have no wish to criticise Madam Deputy Speaker, but we think that she got it wrong. If the matter is left as it stands, it will set a precedent for it will mean that the voices no longer matter. In future, there may be some instances where the Opposition would welcome the fact that voices did not matter, but the Government might not like that. We would like a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker, on whether the voices will continue to matter.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly the voices matter. My ruling is a simple one and the House has heard it. I have no power or authority to overrule the decision of the occupant of the Chair at the time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is no ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to reverse what happened yesterday.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The voices were collected and the Division took place. Mr. Harry Cohen—ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, God! Yes. What is it?

Mr. Tony Banks: No, Mr. Speaker—Frank Cook actually.

Mr. Speaker: It was intended to be a compliment.

Mr. Cook: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not responding immediately when you agreed to hear my point of order. I was struck dumb by my sudden promotion.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I am a recent appointee to the Select Committee on Procedure. If I cannot understand what is happening, Mr. Speaker, there may be other members of the Select Committee who find that they are in similar difficulties. Perhaps I should recount my experience of sitting on the far end of the Opposition Front Bench as a Whip. When I did not say No loud enough when voices were being collected, Mr. Deputy Speaker said that the call was not loud enough, that that was hard luck and that we


had lost the Division. The collection of voices is important. That has been the position in the past and it continues to be the position.
The issue is, when are procedures total and finite and when are they to be ignored? We have already heard, Mr. Speaker, that there was no ruling and that the House merely went on with the Division. If we do not have a ruling and if no guidance is given, I shall be lost. I shall be unable to fulfil my functions and carry out my responsibilities as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on with today's business—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the House feels strongly about the matter, hon. Members should ask the Select Committee on Procedure to give Mr. Speaker authority to overrule other occupants of the Chair—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There was no ruling.

Mr. Speaker: —who took a particular decision. At present, I have no authority to do that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There was no ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The House cannot possibly ask Mr. Speaker to do something for which he has no authority and which he cannot do.

Mr. Dobson: I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you, with Madam Deputy Speaker and the Clerk, were to review what happened last night, and then to give a ruling for the future. We are not necessarily asking you to overrule what happened last night. We are asking you to take the course that I have suggested, in your role as the protector of everyone's rights in this place. We ask you to give a ruling on the application or otherwise of the Standing Orders that apply to voices, which clearly were not complied with last night. I think that everyone would agree that they should be authoritative.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raised a point of order at the time. He should have persisted with the matter last night.

Mr. Dobson: I have no wish to embarrass you, Mr. Speaker, as the occupant of the Chair. You seek to persuade us to make brief points of order, not to pursue them and not to continue to take up the time of the House. I thought last night—it is clear that my colleagues took the same view—that once we had had the opportunity of listening to the tape, we might get some response from you, Mr. Speaker. It was clearly unreasonable to ask Madam Deputy Speaker to leave the Chair to listen to the tape to ascertain what had gone on.
I find it a trifle upsetting to be told now that having raised a point of order at the moment that the issue arose, that point of order does not count. It seems that I am being

told that I should have persisted with it. I do not know what I should have said to Madam Deputy Speaker when she said:
A Division is now in progress."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]
Should I have tried to interrupt the Division? We are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to review what happened last night, not necessarily to overrule it. We wish you to clarify exactly where we stand in relation to the Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker: We really should get on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The authoritative record is Hansard, not the tape. What matters is what the occupant of the Chair hears and what is recorded in Hansard. In fairness, it must not ask the Speaker to overrule the occupant of the Chair when he has no authority so to do.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is no ruling.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on this important matter. Is not the normal procedure that which happened yesterday—that the Second Deputy Chairman said,
I think that the Noes have it."—[Official Report, 8 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 262.]
She did not say, "The Noes have it. The Noes have it", as often happens, which is usually an invitation to the other side who wish to oppose to shout. Is it not correct that Madam Deputy Speaker then heard the point of order made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and made a ruling by continuing the Division, which was the end of the matter?

Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is not asking you to overrule Madam Deputy Speaker but to look at the matter. Fresh evidence has been raised and there is no reason why, without any commitment, you could not discuss the matter with the people concerned and come back to the House. I put that as a sensible suggestion to you.

Mr. Speaker: In order to conclude this matter, I will discuss what happened last night with the Deputy Speaker. She has already mentioned it to me this morning, but I shall discuss it with her further. I think that we should now get on.

Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot say more than I have said. Is the point of order on a different matter?

Mr. Meale: It is in relation to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have not made any ruling.

Parental Leave

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes.
I shall certainly be shouting aye loudly when I have presented the Bill.
I am pleased to reintroduce my Parental Leave Bill which was first introduced on 11 February last year, when it had considerable support in the nation. It is a radical and progressive measure for parents and children. It provides that mothers and fathers be allowed to take three months' paid leave during the first two years of their child's life. It can be in the first five years if the child is disabled or adopted. Parental leave will also apply to single parents and, on a pro rata basis, to part-time workers. It gives the parents the right to return to the same or similar work after an absence for child care.
The benefits of parental leave are enormous. It promotes equal opportunities, especially for women, and it gives a mother more options, knowing that the time off will be available to herself and her husband. It makes it easier for her to choose whether to return to work after the birth of her baby. With the provision of parental leave, her employment conditions take into account her real life circumstances—those of a mother. At present, many women are simply denied the choice of whether to return to work. Many of those who do return are in low-paid, low-calibre jobs, increasingly part-time, and their skills are neither properly used nor rewarded.
Parental leave also helps women to overcome the discontinuity in employment caused by child rearing. Britain has a low employment rate for women compared with the United States and other industrialised nations. A mother of two is out of the labour force for over seven years on average and loses earnings of more than £140,000 during her working life. That is unfair, but it could be overcome with measures such as my Parental Leave Bill.
Parental leave also distributes responsibility for child care more fairly between the parents, recognising it as a joint responsibility, not the woman's alone. Parental leave actively promotes that important change in attitude.
Parental leave also improves family and child welfare. It allows and encourages mother and father to work together as a team, sharing the burdens and the pleasures of caring for their baby. It recognises the importance of bonding, especially between father and child. Mr. T. Berry Brazelton, the chief medical officer of Harvard medical school in Boston, writing in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, said:
We have seen that relatively minor, relatively inexpensive adjustments on the part of the medical system—such as … father participation … —can increase the opportunities for 'bonding' to the baby. Although this is likely to be only a first step toward fostering attachment and significantly enhancing the possibilities for the baby's optimal development, it is a most important step.
I could give many other examples from the experts.
Parental leave will also counter the growing incidence of child abuse in Britain and be a serious measure in the reduction of family stress, which can be so damaging.
Parental leave gives dads a fairer deal. Fathers are almost forgotten contributors to child development, but most want to contribute positively. Many, when given the opportunity, find that they enjoy spending time with their children.
The benefits are enormous and they are widely recognised abroad. For example, 10 of the 12 EC countries already have parental leave arrangements. That is recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his letter to me dated 10 June. Britain is dragging its feet in denying working parents parental leave. The Government say that the EC countries have widely differing provisions, but at least they have them. Britain should have them as well. The Government should not continue to veto the EC draft directive.
The cost of parental leave has been referred to as a problem. The EC scheme would at most cost only £45 million. Mine would cost more, mainly because it is better, but it would cost less than 0·1 per cent. of overall working costs. My Bill recognises the impact that parental leave would have on small businesses by setting up a parental leave fund so that such people would not lose out.
It is easier for the employer and employee to plan, and would cost less, if leave were authorised rather than being unauthorised, as happens now. The skills returned to those firms by women's return to work is also of considerable value and should be taken into account. The benefits of parental leave clearly outweigh its cost. That is why the rest of Europe has adopted some form of parental leave.
My Bill has received widespread support. Significantly, active support has come from the British Medical Association, which says that it will give British parents the same opportunities as the majority of their counterparts in Europe, laying the foundations for a secure family life. The BMA goes into greater detail, which I shall not deal with because of the shortage of time, but it also presses parental leave upon the National Health Service, where it says it is very much needed, and the matter is being taken up at Whitley council level. In recognition of that, and in their role as employer, the Government should move towards parental leave.
My Bill is also supported by the Equal Opportunities Commission. It believes that there is an urgent need for such an arrangement to assist the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities and to encourage a more equitable sharing of the latter. It is also supported by the National Childbirth Trust. [Interruption.] Hon. Members groan every time I mention such organisations.
The Maternity Alliance supports my proposals and states that there needs to be a statutory right to parental leave as that would be the single most important step to reducing the disadvantages suffered by working parents, although it would like to see other improvements in child care provision as well. The Maternity Alliance itself has the support of more than 50 national organisations, some of which are very well known.
My Bill has the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), so it is agreed Labour party policy that a system of parental leave should be introduced. It has the support of many trade unions. NUPE has sent me a letter giving the Bill its strong support and urging the Government to think again about the draft directive and their veto of it. Many local authorities have also written to me to that effect.
The denial of parental leave is part of the Government's reduction in overall child care support which includes the freezing of child benefit last week. There have been any number of reductions. Last week, The Observer commented:
Mothers bringing up Britain's next generation are made to feel like scroungers.
That is because of the effect that cuts have on child care. My Bill seeks to rectify that. My purpose in introducing it now is to influence the Queen's Speech and to make the Government think again; to start acting in favour of children and the family rather than utter platitudes while at the same time marching in the opposite direction and cutting child benefit.
The European Commission report, "Child Care and Equality of Opportunity" stated that the principal aim
is a Europe where the work and responsibility involved in child care is properly valued and more equally distributed; where parents can reconcile family responsibilities and employment … in a way that is satisfying and does not involve disadvantage and inequality; and where children can get the advantage of a range of positive and enhancing experiences at home, in child care services and society at large. These aims concern both equality and quality of life.
My Bill is part of that aim.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Tony Benn and Mr. Bob Clay.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

Orders of the Day — Housing Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have for a number of months expressed our concern about the way in which the Bill has been handled both in the House and outside. I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker—although I recognise that there is little you can do—the fact that last Wednesday during Environment Question Time there were two opportunities for the Government to tell the House of Commons first what they intended doing about housing action trusts and their vote.
In fact, the Government announced their intentions to the nation on a television programme last Sunday. As one of my hon. Friends described it, it was Government by Dimbleby. We object to Government announcements being made on television when only a few days previously they missed an opportunity of dealing with the matter during questions, which only serves to devalue Question Time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not only was the Government's announcement on television extremely vague, but when my office phoned the appropriate Government Department a little later, it did not know whether or not an announcement had been made. We often complain to you, Mr. Speaker, knowing that all you can do is to listen, and that you are a means of passing on our complaints. I realise that you cannot do anything, but I wish to register a very strong protest.
My other point concerns a matter that we have been raising for a year. We have had the shortest possible time, rather than the normal amount of time, to deal with matters that have come to this House from another place. I realise that we are near to the end of this Session, but corners are being cut far too often, particularly in respect of major legislation affecting millions of people, and that is not acceptable.

Mr. George Howarth: Further to those points of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has problems enough arising from the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water being in another place and not accountable to this House. That is compounded by the fact that major announcements are made on television rather than from the Floor of this House. There is a strong feeling on the Opposition Benches that it borders on contempt when announcements are made in that way.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the broadcast in question concerned housing action trusts. I did not see it myself, but right hon. and hon. Members know my view that the House should always be the first to be told about such matter, rather than learn through other means. It will be possible to debate this matter under Lords amendment No. 111. Perhaps that will be the moment when right hon. and hon. Members who heard the broadcast can comment and ask questions.

Clause 1

ASSURED TENANCIES.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, after "(2)" insert "or subsection (5)"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 45, 46, 166 and 250.

Mr. Trippier: Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are designed to help local authorities arrange temporary accommodation for homeless people to whom they owe a duty under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985. Under that Act, local authorities have a duty to house the homeless temporarily in certain circumstances. Where an authority provides the temporary accommodation itself, it will normally have no difficulty obtaining possession when the time comes for the occupant to leave, because the Act provides tht lettings of that temporary kind are not secure tenancies for the first 12 months.
There can be problems where the temporary accommodation is provided by arrangement with another landlord, such as a housing association. The landlord needs to be sure that he can get possession when necessary to house other families. The amendments, which are modelled on the equivalent provision in the 1985 Act, thus provide that a tenancy granted by arrangement with a local authority pursuant to its duties to arrange temporary housing will not normally be assured during an initial 12 month period. Amendment No. 250 adds a similar provision to the equivalent Scottish legislation.
Amendments Nos. 2, 166, 3, 45 and 46 are concerned with tenancies where the landlord is a fully mutual housing association—usually referred to as a housing co-operative. The Bill provides that such tenancies cannot be assured tenancies. We included this on the argument that a statutory regime designed to regulate the relationship between landlord and tenant has little relevance in a situation where, as is the nature of a co-operative, the interests of landlord and tenants as a whole are, in effect, indivisible.
It has none the less emerged that a small number of co-operatives are at present letting on the basis of old-style assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1980. We accepted that it would be wrong, as a matter of principle, to deprive the tenants in those cases of statutory protection that they now have. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 45 deal with the problem by providing that an old-style assured tenancy under which the landlord is a fully mutual housing association will become, on commencement of the Act, a new-style assured tenancy.

Mr. Soley: This important amendment deals with assured tenancies. I should be grateful if the Minister will clarify certain points. He mentioned that, in certain circumstances, temporary accommodation may be provided by housing associations. However, amendment No. 45 implies that it will not necessarily be a housing association that is involved. In other words, the amendments could apply to any new landlord, and that is likely to be the case.
Lords amendment No. 4 is the meat of this group of amendments. Current legislation will result in many local

authorities having no housing to offer the homeless, while still having a statutory duty to house them. It is feared that the Government are seeking to get rid of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, or at least to redefine it so that it means ruthlessness. They will then be able to fiddle the figures much as they have done with the unemployment statistics, rather than solving the problem of homelessness, which is much more important than fiddling figures.
Under existing legislation, some local authorities are already trying to transfer all their housing stock to housing associations or other organisations. The Minister recently sent out guidance to local authorities, which appalled me when I read it, and which incidentally was never raised in the Standing Committee. One of the reasons why we complain about the management of the Bill at every available opportunity is that we did not debate many of these issues in Committee, because the Government had not given us the necessary information, or else made changes after the relevant stage was over.
The guidance stated that local authorities transferring all their stock might wish to enter a private contract with another landlord for the housing of homeless people. That raises a number of questions. For one thing it means privatising the homeless, but other matters never debated in Committee also become relevant here.
Let us suppose that, after a local authority has transferred all its stock, someone appears at the local council office claiming homelessness, perhaps accompanied by a couple of young children. The local authority enters into a contract with a private landlord who says that he will take the family, but we do not know how long he will have to take them for; it may be a long time or quite a short time. The problem will be complicated in some areas where the only alternative is for the homeless people to stay with that landlord, but if he keeps them for longer than 12 months their tenancy position will change.
The Minister puts the measure forward as a way of dealing with the problem of someone who becomes homeless but should not be made an assured tenant because the landlord will want to move him on in due course. In those circumstances, what will happen to the homeless family? Will they go back to the local authority and say that they have become homeless again because of the wording of the Bill?
The Government have made it clear many times that they intend to get local authorities to give up all their council housing. Even if we agree with that, which I do not, it is nonsense to get authorities to give up housing without being able to replace it. I do not think that anyone apart from the Government believes that the private sector will replace it. We know that that sector has lost even more rented accommodation since 1980 than suggested by some of my original estimates. Well over 550,000 lets have gone in the past few years. We also know that well over half the lets in London are outside the Rent Acts, so they would not seem to have much to do with it.
A number of further problems arise from the local authority's contract with the private landlord. First, we have no indication of what he can or should charge. If he is a monopoly supplier he may be able to charge the earth, and presumably the ratepayer will have to pick up the bill. The local authority, however, may be able to choose between two or three landlords. If, as the Minister has said, the landlord will want the homeless person out, perhaps the Government propose that, before the 12


months are up, the local authority should ring up yet another landlord and say, "In a few months Mr. Brown, who has kindly been housing a homeless family, will not house them any more, because if he does he will have to take them for good—or at least under the conditions of an assured tenancy. If we are to avoid that, we need someone else to take them."
Presumably Mr. Smith, who has been approached to take the family from Mr. Brown, will say, "I don't know. Are you going to leave them with me for as long as you left them with Mr. Brown?" The family will be, at best, passed around from one landlord to another, each landlord having to foreclose within 12 months. Alternatively, the local authority will have to try to wriggle out of its responsibilities.
The Observer of the Sunday before last featured an article about a Department of the Environment report which said that some local authorities took their responsibilities to the homeless much more seriously than others. The article claimed that the Government were deliberately suppressing the report because it said that, although councils were dealing with the homeless very well, some—Westminster was cited as an example, which came as no great surprise—were finding reasons for not housing them. Others, such as Birmingham, tried to rehouse them within a day. Birmingham is of course a Labour council. That says something about the different values on the two sides of the House.
A report produced by the Department, not by me or my supporters, states that some authorities are now backsliding on their responsibilities to the homeless. The amendment will mean either that landlord and local authority will vie with each other to move the family on or that, if the authority is desperate or devious enough, that it may try to persuade the landlord to keep the family for longer than a year to obtain the greater assurance for which the amendment provides. The argument thus becomes extremely complex.
As so often in the Bill, the Government have said that this is only a small change and that the Lords have made an improvement. I shall not argue about the nature of the improvement, but, as always, the handling of the change has meant no debate in Committee or on Report, and the proposal has not been examined in depth. Now, for understandable and good reasons, the Lords have introduced a measure that will mean many homeless people either being shunted between landlords or pushed out into the street again. Alternatively, the council will try to back them by persuading a private landlord to keep them for a long time.
I think that the Bill is a disaster. I make no bones about that. Last year homelessness doubled in this country, and I have no doubt that it will double again, not least because of the Chancellor's absurd interest rates policy. He claims as an example of its working for the economy that it makes it harder to get mortgages—in other words, harder to buy. Given that it is already harder to rent, we must ask where on earth people on low incomes are supposed to rent or buy. The answer that the Government always give is that somehow or other, the private sector will resurrect itself and make up the difference and homeless people will be able to turn to the private sector. But there is no sign that that is happening.
We are being asked to accept Lords amendments to deal with that, so we need to know how local authorities are supposed to deal with homeless persons in the

circumstances that I have described. No one denies that there will be an increase in homelessness. The other day I was interested to hear either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State say that one of the problems of homelessness was young women getting pregnant in order to jump the queue. I find that suggestion offensive and insulting. The number of women in a decade in Britain who decide to get pregnant in order to jump the housing queue probably could be counted on one hand. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) may shake his head, but it is incredibly insulting to suggest that women get pregnant for that reason
5.30 pm
Conservative Members forget that there is a duty on local authorities to tell people who is entitled to be housed. In certain circumstances, they have a duty to house women who are going to have babies. However, that does not mean that women rush out and get pregnant in order to jump the list. Even if that were the case, it is clear from the statistics that the fastest-growing reason for homelessness is mortgage repossession. One in 10 homeless families are homeless because they cannot pay their mortgage. One in 10 of homeless families are homeless because of mortgage foreclosure, compared with about one in 25 under the last Labour Government. That is the nature and extent of the problem.
Under the Bill and the existing legislation, local authorities are already moving all their tenants into the private sector. They are asking housing associations to take them over, they are setting up housing associations or, in some cases, they are looking for private landlords, who are not part of the public sector as are housing associations—at least in part. The Government have not told the councils or the people of this country—some of whom will become homeless—what will happen when people present themselves as homeless at the town hall, the town hall parcels them out to one of the contracted private landlords, and the private landlord says, "The Bill as amended says that if I keep you for too long, you become an assured tenant. I cannot risk that, so you will have to go."
Am I correct in my interpretation that the amendment relates to all landlords, and not just to housing associations? Secondly, will the Minister spell out in detail his views on how local authorities are supposed to deal with homelessness when the homeless have been contracted out to private landlords who are worried about keeping them for too long in case they become assured tenants?

Mr. John Battle: I am glad that at last the word "homeless" appears in the Bill. It has only just appeared in an amendment at this very late stage. Certainly, some hon. Members, at least those on the Opposition Benches, believe that the Bill will generate homelessness, but I am glad to see that at least the word appears in the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for a reply that I received to a question I tabled earlier this month.

Mr. David Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware of a parliamentary reply I received from the Department of the Environment? I asked what study had been made of prospective tenants on housing waiting lists and of whether people waiting for accommodation from local


authorities could pay the market rents. I received a reply from the Minister saying that no such study had been carried out. Does my hon. Friend agree that the large majority of people on housing waiting lists would be in no position to pay market rents?

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as questions quite often receive deceptive replies. I would couple the question to which my hon. Friend has referred with a question that he asked earlier to which he received a reply from the Government suggesting that there should be no more council house building in Britain.
Earlier this month I asked the Minister
What advice he proposes to give to local authorities which have no housing stock about their fulfilment of their statutory duty to house the homeless.
I remind the Minister of his reply. He referred to the guidelines that his Department issued in June and said:
This makes it clear that local authorities must make adequate arrangements to continue to meet their statutory obligations in relation to housing the homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985. In deciding whether to give consent to large-scale disposal, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that such arrangements have been made."—[Official Report, 2 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 689.]
That is a circular answer which builds a circular argument for the Government. It is not a question of large-scale disposals which may leave behind some council housing. What will happen when all the council housing has gone? How on earth will a council be able to fulfil its obligations to house the homeless, unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggested—he asked the Government to clarify this—the interpretation behind the amendment is that the Government intend local authorities to make arrangements with private landlords? Is that the case, or are the Government suggesting that in future local authorities make arrangements with housing action trusts and give them the statutory obligations to house the homeless? That is not in the Bill.
If that is the case, it is clear that a hidden agenda lies behind the amendment, and the Government are beginning to offload the duties of local authorities to house the homeless on to private landlords and housing associations. That would change the offer to homeless people from that of a secure tenancy to a temporary provision and downgrade their status in society.
Will the Minister make it absolutely plain to the House tonight that the Government do not intend to downgrade the status of the homeless and to shift the bed-and-breakfast option into statutory provision? That could be a consequence of the measure. If councils have no housing for homeless people, where can they go except into bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Ministers have condemned bed and breakfast as a bad deal costing the taxpayers excessive amounts in housing benefit. Will the Minister now say that that is not the option that will be left? If a local authority is to be told that it can fulfil its statutory obligations only by supporting bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the Bill ends where it started and does not tackle the real problems of housing in our society. I hope that tonight the Minister will give us some assurance that that is not the hidden agenda behind the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have only one question to put to the Under-Secretary of State, and I welcome him to the debate. It is particularly unsatisfactory that, for the first time for many years, we have no Minister for Housing who is a Member of the House. I know that the Secretary of State heads the Department, and it is proper that he is on the Government Front Bench. However, it is entirely unacceptable that the person entrusted by the Government with the responsibility for housing has no constituents whatsoever. He has no constituents who tell him about the plight of the homeless, who come to him homeless or who tell him about the effects of the cuts in housing benefit, about their difficulties in obtaining a move or about their conditions.
I have not checked, and I have no idea how large an estate or how large a home or homes the Earl of Caithness has—[Interruption.] It is entirely relevant, because people who live in mansions on large estates have no idea what it is like to live in damp tower blocks or inner-city slums. I know what it is like because I live in the middle of my constituency, which is one of the worst and most deprived housing areas in Britain.
I understand that the arrangements are temporary and that the Minister for Housing may be packed off elsewhere after he has done his job of getting the remaining amendments through the House of Lords. If we are to have housing legislation in the next Session, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will do the House and the country the courtesy of appointing a Minister for Housing who is accountable to the House of Commons and who has some idea of what the housing crisis in Britain in 1988 is like.

Mr. John Heddle: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the noble Lord, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside is a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which may enable him to bring some practical knowledge of housing Acts, landlords and tenants and housing generally to bear on his job? Does not that make him as well qualified for the job as a member of the Bar?

Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's valid factual point about the Minister's qualifications, but it is entirely unacceptable that the man in charge of British housing has no constituents and is elected by no one. Recent housing legislation has been the result of the Government's failure to understand. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the programme "On the Record" on Sunday—

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I did; I did not see the beginning, but I watched the whole interview with the noble Lord. The U-turn, or concession, made on housing action trust votes—we shall debate that later—came only because at some time in the summer the Secretary of State, his junior Minister and others went to meet real people to talk about real issues, thereby coming to understand the folly of the Government's proposals.

Mr. Allan Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman says, that ministerial statement was made on television, not here. Does not that emphasise the hon. Gentleman's point that the Government treat Parliament with


contempt, appointing unelected Ministers with responsibilities for major programmes of activity? These Ministers do not even announce major initiatives in the other place—they do so on television.

Mr. Hughes: That is correct. The programme I have referred to was one of those extraordinary times when it was impossible to know whether an announcement had been made. Certainly, that was not clear to the interviewer or to the waiting public: was it a concession or an acceptance of the Lords amendment? That was not clarified until later, as I said in a point of order to Mr. Speaker.
In future, I hope for clear announcements, made in the proper way, in the right place—this Chamber.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question about Lords amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4—especially No. 4—provide for two options. Present arrangements for housing the homeless, as laid down in the Housing Act 1985, are usually for assured tenancies for the first 12 months. Exceptionally, if people want to resile from that, they can create an assured tenancy in less than 12 months. What does the Minister regard as the appropriate policy for granting accommodation to the homeless? On Friday we are to debate these matters on a Government motion for the Adjournment. It would be helpful to know now whether the Government think that people who qualify for accommodation temporarily, indefinitely or permanently, because they are homeless, should be given only insecure accommodation—or the same security as anyone else.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have a simple question for the Minister, to which I want a full and honest response. How will local authorities deal with the homeless? Is the privatisation of homelessness to be forced on us, as happened with the care of the elderly by means of a series of measures? Now, there is wholesale private care of the elderly, whereas before local authorities had the resources to deal with them.
If homelessness is to be privatised, the Minister must give us some guarantees, the more so as this is one of the few occasions in the course of proceedings on the Bill when we can discuss this subject. Friday is fine, but it is good to have a Minister here now to answer questions about the detail of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) mentioned bed and breakfast. Is that to be housing's equivalent of private residential homes for the elderly? Parallels between the two can be drawn. These moves cannot be justified even in the Government's own economic terms. They will be wasteful and destructive of family life—so much has already been proved. I have come across this as a local councillor. Sadly, during the past two or three years Halifax has developed a real homelessness problem. In the past it had a proud record of housing people; now we have full hostels, and we have to use bed-and-breakfast and private accommodation, which is often squalid. Local authorities are left with no alternative but to use it.
The Government are using this Bill deliberately to destroy the welfare state. As an example of that, I offer a unique scheme in Halifax to rehouse young people, many of whom had offended or been in care. It was sabotaged even before it started because cuts in housing benefit made

it uneconomic. My constituency contains a high-rise block of flats that could have been put to good use. In conjunction with Stoneham housing association, the council was to furnish the flats and let them cheaply to homeless people, but, because of changes in the law this April, housing benefits are no longer available, which has left many of these youngsters £4·65 short each week.
All these factors have combined to create a horrendous homelessness problem. Does the Minister intend to seek the wholesale privatisation of the homeless? He owes the House an honest answer.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Almost in the final hour of debate on this Bill, the Government have introduced the word "homelessness", thereby affording some recognition—albeit insignificant—to a growing problem.
Over the past decade, the Government have presided over a doubling of homelessness in Britain, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Those figures are calculated by the Government and local authorities and do not include people who are homeless but do not qualify as such under the Act. Another reason why the Government are trying to give the impression that they are concerned about homelessness is that it was becoming clear throughout the summer in leaks from the Department that the Government intended to consider changing the whole nature of homelessness legislation in the Queen's Speech and to replace it with the concept of rooflessness. At that point the Government came under ever more powerful pressure because of their callous attitude to homelessness.
Since July, five reports on the problem have been issued. The Audit Commission's final report has not yet been completed but the draft report is a damning indictment of the way in which the Secretary of State has handled and defined homelessness. The Commission said that the major reason for homelessness was the Government's market philosophy of housing, as shown in the Bill. It is also true that the Government, in trying to avoid the embarrassment of the report, have rushed out their own document about rural housing. That is a matter that we shall return to on other amendments.
What has been said by the Institute of Housing and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? Those organisations completed major reports about housing this summer. On 9 November, a report was published in Housing magazine about homelessness. The report was prepared not by politicians but by professionals and it involved consultations with housing associations, local authorities, community groups and housing charities. The report comes to the conclusion that the Government's underinvestment in public housing is a major factor in the increase in homelessness in the United Kingdom. The report says:
Some means, such as 'homeless at home' schemes, exist to help reduce the use of bed and breakfast. We were also convinced that housing associations must play a more active role and offer greater assistance to local authorities in housing the homeless. Nevertheless … Government must accept responsibilities for meeting the needs of homeless people, instead of expecting local authorities with their limited administering resources, to bear the brunt. Direct action must be taken to ensure that the 50,000–70,000 extra homes a year … are actually built.
Those homes should be built in the public sector.
What is the Government's response to that call from the professional organisations involved in housing, the


voluntary sector and charities? The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a clue in his autumn statement. Inside Housing, Volume 5, No. 43 says:
The bonanza caused by the rise in council house sales will not be reinvested in housing. That is the message contained in Chancellor Nigel Lawson's Autumn Statement published this week—and it's bleak news for local authorities and those in housing need … For 1989/90 local authorities have been given a negative cash limit: the total they will be allowed to spend (£3,303 million) will be less than the amount coming in from capital receipts (£3,490 m). Actual allocations through the housing investment programme will be cut 20 per cent. in cash—and nearly 26 per cent. in real terms—compared to this year, leaving a HIP total of only £920 m.
That is the Government's response to the debate over the summer about the growing crisis of homelessness and that is why the Minister spoke so inadequately for the Lords amendments. None of the amendments will tackle the growing crisis of homelessness in Britain. The Government are creating not only an under-class, but a class of nomads who go from one hostel to another and from one bed-and-breakfast hotel to another. There is no opportunity for the single homeless or for homeless families to set down roots or to be involved in the community. The Government do not give a damn about that, because the homeless are also voteless. The crisis of homelessness denies people the opportunity to put down roots and the opportunity to have a say in the running of the country. The Government's policy of underinvestment shows a great disregard for many people in the United Kingdom. The Minister owes it us to bring forward genuine proposals this evening to deal with the growing crisis of homelessness.
The Minister need only walk with me five minutes from the House to see men and women sleeping tonight in cardboard boxes. That is London 1988, not 1888. Tonight, 7,000 young people will sleep rough in the nation's capital. They are not feckless people who are unable to seek jobs. They were persuaded by the Government and by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get on their bike to seek their fortunes in the capital city. They find themselves not only isolated and jobless, but without a roof over their heads. That happens not only tonight, but every night of the year—in summer, winter, or spring.
The Secretary of State does not seem to be able even to listen—or perhaps he does not like to hear about what happens to the homeless. He is responsible for the housing problem not only because of his intellectual contempt for the homeless, but because in a former life he was a private landlord. I can imagine his attitude to the homeless.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that if one goes over the river to Waterloo, one will see many homeless men and women sleeping out every night. Many do not take one penny off the state and never have done. Some of them still manage to go to work and earn money, although they can find nowhere to live and have no prospect of doing so for months on end. There are queues for the more sheltered spaces under the arches, let alone at housing offices up and down the country.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member is right. I shall make an offer to the Secretary of State. Will he come with me to the jobcentre in Victoria street and meet the young and middle-aged, men and women who are waiting for an odd job in hotels or, ironically, bed-and-breakfast

accommodation? They work during the day and sleep rough at night, yet they go back day after day to seek a living. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that they do not receive a single penny of benefit from the community. They do not receive housing benefit, unemployment benefit or income support.
The crisis is not merely a crisis of rooflessness, as the Government put it; it is a crisis of the nation's social conscience. The Minister must take steps to meet that social crisis. Housing is an essential part of the issue, so he must come up not only with simple little phrases about dealing with homelessness, but with cash and resources to provide new housing to meet the crisis. He must do so before young people's lives are ruined. They run the risk not only of bad health caused by living rough, but of being morally corrupted. The Minister has refused to deal with the moral corruption of young men and women who are forced into immoral practices because they are unable to find jobs or houses, and the support of families and the community is denied to them.
Will the Minister give a commitment to visit cardboard city and to meet the people who seek jobs at the jobcentre in Victoria street and then sleep on Charing Cross embankment? He should see for himself the results of the bankruptcy of Conservative policies on homelessness in this country.

Mr. Winnick: Labour Members make no apology for being passionately concerned about the plight of the homeless, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I know that the Secretary of State has his good points on other matters—

Mrs. Mahon: Which ones?

Mr. Winnick: His good points are not in political matters. The Secretary of State simply does not care about housing. Some senior Ministers have a private concern about housing, which they do not often express. However, the Secretary of State has no public or private concern about the misery of the homeless. He does not understand the problem, he could not care less about it and he probably thinks that people could find accommodation if they really wanted to.
We are debating an amendment that has a great bearing on the position of the homeless. Homelessness could be avoided if local authorities were able to build accommodation. I have been given figures that show that the number of new public sector starts for the coming financial year will be well below 20,000 for the whole country. That means that in some places, such as my borough, no local authority building has taken place for nine years. Unless the Government change their policy on local authority finance, there is not the slightest chance of any new building taking place. Ministers respond by asking, "What about the empty dwellings?" A number of dwellings are undoubtedly empty because work is being undertaken, but all the empty dwellings put together would be a drop in the ocean when compared to the need to house and rehouse people in the public sector.
6 pm
When I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) I referred to a ministerial reply that I had received. My question was a simple one. I asked whether the Department of the Environment had undertaken a survey to find out how


many people on the local authority housing waiting list were in a position to pay market rents. The whole emphasis of the Bill as regards the private sector is that all new tenancies will be subject to market rents, and it is therefore relevant to ask how many of those waiting for accommodation could pay market rents. I received the clear and simple reply that no such survey had been undertaken. That must be a matter of concern.
I do not suggest that everyone on the waiting list is desperately in need of accommodation, but the people who come to my surgery and who write to me daily about their housing problems are in a miserable plight. A young couple came to my surgery last weekend. They do not have children and they live with the wife's mother, who has other adult children living in the household. When I explained to them that the Government believed that they should be able to solve their problem by getting a mortgage and buying a place, they laughed, because they simply do not have the means to obtain a mortgage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield spoke of homelessness in this part of London. That is partly the Government's responsibility, but much of the responsibility also undoubtedly rests with the leadership of Westminster council. The way in which that council is being run is absolutely scandalous. Westminster council is in the process of selling off as much of its accommodation as possible—with or without tenants. It is trying to privatise the homelessness problem and will not take responsibility for the homeless.
It gives me no satisfaction to say that Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster council, is quite simply unfit to run a local authority. If the leadership had any understanding at all, it would be doing its utmost to fulfil its statutory responsibility for housing and would be putting pressure on the Government to allow it the finance necessary to house the homeless. Lady Porter, who almost acts as a dictator of the council rather than a normal leader of a local authority, does not seem to have any time for her Conservative colleagues, who are supposed to—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do not have much time for her, either."] Probably not. If ever a local authority needed to be investigated, it is the London borough of Westminster. Conservative Members may not be willing to echo my sentiments but I am sure that many of them—perhaps even those present now—privately accept that what I am saying is quite true. Lady Porter should not be in her present position and the sooner there is a change, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a by-election is to take place in the Victoria ward of the borough of Westminster. The subject that we are discussing—the rights of housing association and private sector tenants—is becoming an issue in that by-election. That will enable Labour to move very much nearer to taking control of Westminster council.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside any patriotic party motive that I may have for wanting Labour to take control of Westminster, I am quite sure that it would be a godsend for all those who are now suffering in the borough, and who recognise that a change of control of the council would help to relieve their problem.
For what it is worth, the amendment provides limited protection, requiring a court order before eviction can take place. I repeat that the plight of the homeless should

occupy all our thoughts. In previous debates I have spoken, like my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, about the homeless people who will be sleeping on the Embankment tonight. They are living in conditions which are more likely to be associated with conditions in a Third world country than with Britain.
If hon. Members think that I am exaggerating, they should go and look for themselves. We shall probably be here for quite a time and it would do no harm for Conservative Members—I shall join them if they like—to take a walk to see how many of our fellow citizens will be spending a cold November night in cardboard boxes, not because they are drunk or lazy or irresponsible, but because they are in no position to organise their housing; they cannot afford housing in the capital. Some of those people—not all, by any means—have taken the advice of the Government and have come hundreds of miles to seek a job. Whether they can find a job or not, they are certainly not in a position to solve their own housing problems.

Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman poses an interesting challenge. He compares the First and Third worlds and that is a legitimate comparison; there are 1 million people sleeping on the pavements of Calcutta. However, I challenge him to name any major capital city in the western developed world where a similiar problem does not exist, irrespective of the character or style of the Government in power.

Mr. Winnick: The obvious comparison is with New York—a city in the most advanced capitalist country. We know the sort of policies that are pursued in the United States and it is understandable that London and New York should have the same homelessness problem. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Stand up and say it.

Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) would stand up, I would gladly give way.
The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) may say that in India many more people live in the conditions that I have described. But it is not part of our argument that conditions are the same here as in the Indian subcontinent. I am simply saying that the plight of those to whom my hon. Friends and I have referred—albeit a small minority—is disgraceful. It should not be allowed, and in most cases it is not the fault of the individual. It arises because in places such as London people cannot find a place through a local authority or housing association or obtain a mortgage.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I do not for one moment disagree with the hon. Gentleman's general comments about the undesirability—the tragedy—of homelessness, whether in Calcutta or in London. But the problem has defeated the organisation of man and systems generally. In every major capital city of the world, the problem of homelessness exists and has not been solved.

Mr. Winnick: I shall not be sarcastic in welcoming the hon. Gentleman into the debate. The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for many years. We differ profoundly on many issues, but we have never been sarcastic to each other. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I completely disagree, has made his point in a courteous


manner. I am very pleased that he has entered our debate, because hon. Members on both sides of the House should be talking about homelessness.
I think that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that the problem has defeated all Governments. But the problem of homelessness has become far more acute. The number of homeless people has trebled under the Conservative Government, and the explanation is relatively simple. Some problems are highly complex, but the reason why there are so many more homeless people—and near-homeless people who do not have to sleep in those conditions but who, like my constituents are childless and living with in-laws and may wait years to be offered local authority accommodation—is quite simple. It is because in 1979 the Government made it their deliberate policy to ensure that as few local authority dwellings as possible were built.
It should be clear to the hon. Member for Havant that reducing public sector building from 109,000 starts in the last full year of the Labour Government to a figure likely to be well under 20,000 this year means that people who cannot resolve their housing problems other than through local authority accommodation are bound to find themselves in the position that we have described.

Mr. Soley: It is important to deal with an excuse that is often used by Conservative Members. There has always been a problem of homelessness in all societies, usually focused on alcoholics, drug addicts, burnt-out schizophrenics, tramps and people who genuinely wish to be homeless. What is uniquely different about Britain and the United States today—I know of no other modern western country in a similar position—is that the problem of homelessness is increasing without being due to those causes. It is due to mortgage repossessions and so on. Britain and the United States seem unable to cope with the problem, so it is accelerating compared with countries such as those in Scandinavia where the problem has steadily decreased. That is a damning indictment of the British Government and, indeed, the United States Government.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend makes the position quite clear. If the hon. Member for Havant, with whom I disagree but who always puts his points in a courteous manner, will look at the advertisements in the London Standard for rented accommodation—no doubt the situation is similar in his own area—he will find that the smallest flat is likely to cost more than £100 per week, a house between £300 and £400 per week and even a single room between £40 and £50 per week. That is the position in London, and much of the responsibility for it must rest with the Government.
I hope that the Minister will explain what action the Government intend to take to ensure that local authorities with the will to deal with homelessness, unlike the London borough of Westminster, are in a position to do so. Do the Government intend to shift the responsibility to people in the private sector who will not be able to provide accommodation for the homeless on a permanent basis? The Minister's answer that no survey had been undertaken to discover whether people on housing waiting lists could pay market rents shows that the Housing Bill is not concerned with the homeless or the near-homeless and will in no way resolve the problems of the people most in need.

Mr. Paul Boateng: It will make them worse.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One way in which the Bill will make things worse is that, whatever the powers against harassment, people with regulated tenancies will be at risk because landlords and property companies will know that, if they can force those tenants out, as Rachman and his associates did the last time there was a Tory rent Act, the accommodation can then be re-let at market rents. The Bill does not apply just to new rented accommodation. All new lets will be subject to market rents.

Mr. Barry Porter: indicated assent.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman nods. I do not know whether he regards that situation as right and proper. He made a brave speech last night and I am happy to give way to him now. If he believes that providing accommodation through the private sector at market rents will do anything to help the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and I have referred, I hope that he will explain how. Those who can afford market rents can almost certainly afford a mortgage, so the people most in need will not be able to take advantage of any provision in the Housing Bill.

Mr. Boateng: The House will have noted that the Secretary of State has vanished. There has been too much talk of homelessness for his liking. Whenever the subject is mentioned within his hearing, his attention begins to wander, he starts to shuffle and shift in his seat and one can be sure that very soon afterwards he will disappear. He has not disappointed us in that respect today, but he must understand that we intend to bring the House back to the issue of homelessness time and again, so he had better get used to it. If he does not like hearing about homelessness, he will be spending very little time with us in the next few hours.
In one sense, the Under-Secretary of State should be relieved that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is no longer with us. The Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate—we are glad to welcome him to that position for the first time in a major debate—will appreciate that he is on probation. He has been handed the poisoned chalice of housing.

Mr. Soley: As an ex-probation officer, I have to point out that the last two Ministers responsible for housing did not even complete a year's probation before being put back inside.

Mr. Boateng: They have, indeed, suffered various fates. One has been sent on his travels and relegated to the Foreign Office. The other has been sent to the Back Benches where she now languishes so undeservedly. She could certainly tell the Under-Secretary a thing or two about his right hon. Friend who until recently was sitting beside him. The Under-Secretary must surely realise how difficult his present position is.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In view of their own experiences in the past couple of years, one would expect recent Housing Ministers to have some sympathy with people whose security of tenure is being substantially reduced.

Mr. Boateng: There is certainly nothing assured about the tenancy currently enjoyed by the Under-Secretary, and we shall do all in our power to make his shorthold as short as possible.
Having put the Under-Secretary at his ease, I am glad to see him beginning to rise from his torpor. I was starting to get worried and to wonder whether we were going to have a dead duck on our hands, but he is beginning to stir. The problems of the homeless may not rouse him, but reference to his own future clearly does.
Let us consider the effect of the amendments in the real world rather than in the world interpreted to the other place by the Minister of State. Some of my colleagues, or not so much colleagues as some of those representing the other Opposition parties—the Democrats, SDP Liberals or whatever the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would like to be called—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Liberal.

Mr. Boateng: We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. It is not often that we feel sympathy for him, but on this occasion we do.

Mr. Barry Porter: Get on!

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) from a constantly sedentary position says, "Get on!" We shall indeed get on, but we wish that he would get up. Given his knowledge of the leisure and tourism industries, perhaps he has something to say to those in enforced leisure who are camping out under the arches without being tourists. We will get on in our own time.
Having said that, I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was a little hard on the noble Lord, the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside. That noble gentleman has responsibility for vast estates in Scotland, so he may understand certain homelessness problems because of difficulties in housing his gillies—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) appears to be somewhat bewildered. A gillie is someone who looks after fish. My hon. Friend's knowledge of fish is probably limited to that which turns up in boxes, usually yellow and with a smiling captain on the front. However, there can be real problems with housing gillies in Scotland.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord will apply his real knowledge of homelessness to his duties as Minister of State. Indeed, there is some sign that he is already doing so, because amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are supposed to reassure housing associations that they will continue to have a role in providing short-term accommodation for the homeless without creating assured tenancies.
I wish to put a number of important questions to the Under-Secretary about the role of housing associations in providing accommodation for the homeless and about how they will work with local housing authorities to fulfil that role. As has been clearly illustrated by a number of my hon. Friends—and even recognised, in his own way, by one Conservative Member—the problem of homelessness is real. It has landed in the lap of local authorities, which are not being given the resources to enable them adequately to tackle it.
In addition, when they seek to meet the difficulties of the time by providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation—highly unsatisfactory accommodation for the homeless—they find themselves, as did my authority, caught in a

double bind because of the rate support grant changes. One day they could rely on a certain amount of rate support grant to pay for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but the next that money was no longer available—it cost my authority £4 million—with all the resulting difficulties in balancing the books and with the very real problem that that presented in fulfilling their legal obligations. Authorities have turned, quite rightly—mine has been doing so for several years, encouraged in rhetoric, but not in fact, by Ministers—to housing associations to meet the challenge of the times and to work together to meet the needs of the homeless.
Bearing in mind what purports to lie behind amendments Nos. 1 and 4—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—one would have thought that that would be welcomed with open arms by Ministers; that the Department of the Environment would have hung out the bunting, delighted by the example of a housing association and a local authority working together to meet the needs of the homeless. However, that did not happen—surprise, surprise. I can see a twinkle of recognition beginning to show in the Minister's eyes.
My local authority entered into an arrangement with what was then the Brent people's housing association for the renovation and restoration of a disused office block in Alperton. It was a major and innovatory project which, one would have thought, would meet with approval because of its use of private capital. Not a single penny of ratepayers' money was to be used to restore that office block for use by homeless families. It was all raised on the private market by a progressive relationship between the housing association, the local authority and the developers, Belway Homes—a first-rate developer with a good track record in that area.
The project was arranged, the foundation stone laid and work began—but then what happened? The association—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. We must talk some more about homelessness. We must not lose the opportunity to talk about the homeless, the homeless, the homeless, the homeless. We are talking about the homeless and we shall continue to talk about the homeless—

Winnick: Let us vote on it.

Mr. Boateng: No, give Jack his jacket and let us engage in an exercise that raised the right hon. Gentleman's consciousness on this issue. What happened to that innovative project to help the homeless, that partnership between the City of London, the local authority and the housing association? The right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet one day and, in another exercise in local authority bashing, changes the rules yet again. Despite the fact that all the money for the project was raised from private investment—something that usually meets with the Government's approval—we have been told that the development at Middlesex house will count against Brent's capital allocation for housing.
The question that I have put in writing to both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, and to which I still await an answer, is whether the Department of the Environment intends to exempt that project from the impact of the Secretary of State's announcement. If we do not receive that assurance we will have cast-iron proof, if


proof be needed, that the amendments are an absolute sham and that there is no real intention to enable local authorities and housing associations—

Mr. Martin Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plight of the homeless is of major concern to the Opposition? If the Secretary of State had not objected to certain planning applications, a fair number of homeless people would have been housed by the builder who wanted to build adjacent to the Secretary of State's house.

Mr. Boateng: It is almost as though the Secretary of State had invented the NIMBY principle—not in my backyard. There is no doubt that the proper and judicious application of his planning power could enormously assist in combating homelessness.
If we do not receive an assurance about the Middlesex house project and the difficult position in which Brent now finds itself, we will find it difficult to take at all seriously the Under-Secretary's assurances about the ostensible purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 4.

Mr. Winnick: Since the Secretary of State is here and much of the debate arising from the amendments has, understandably, been about homelessness, does my hon. Friend know whether the Secretary of State has visited any bread-and-breakfast hostels in his borough or the homeless anywhere else, including those who spend the night on the Embankment, whether covered or uncovered? If the Secretary of State has not, does that not demonstrate once again that he is callously indifferent to the sufferings of those who so concern Labour Members?

Mr. Boateng: One wishes that the Secretary of State would emulate Mother Teresa in that respect. She took time off from the streets of Calcutta to visit the homeless on the streets of London. One hopes that the Secretary of State will do the same, but I fear that around the Secretary of State there clings not so much the odour of sanctity as the odour of sulphur. To believe for a moment that he is likely to come to Brent or elsewhere to visit the homeless stretches credibility to an extent that would reduce to credibility even the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanations about how he came to be so seriously misquoted in the Sunday newspapers.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: My hon. Friend's comments may be wholly inaccurate. The short absence of the Secretary of State a few minutes ago may have been so that he could go along the Embankment to Charing Cross to answer our pleas that he should familiarise himself with the problems of the homeless. However, I understand that in reality he went home to water all the little nuclear power stations he has coming up in his garden.

Mr. Boateng: A likely story. One suspects that it is for a quick fix of environmentally safe nicotine that the Secretary of State departs the Chamber. One does not want to speculate why any hon. Member leaves the Chamber, but in the Secretary of State's case we have our suspicions.
I am anxious to encourage the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State to give us some assurances tonight about the relevance and impact of the Audit

Commission's findings on homelessness and the role of local authorities on amendments Nos. 1 and 4. We know that the report has yet to be published. Is it not strange how many important reports these days remain unpublished and that whenever there are constructive suggestions which may embarrass Conservative Members the report remains unpublished?
We know that the Audit Commission commissioned a report on the responsibilities of housing associations to the homeless. The Under-Secretary of State purports to be concerned about that. The report highlights a growing shortage of homes for rent in both the public and private sectors as the main cause of homelessness rather than the Department of the Environment's view that it is the increasing demand for homes. That may be why the report has never seen the light of day, and I do not think that we are being entirely uncharitable, are we, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Will the Minister consider whether the Audit Commission makes a valid point when it suggests that housing associations should play a greater role in housing the homeless? If that role is to be fulfilled, the matters which amendments Nos. 1 and 4 purport to be concerned with and the subsidies available to local authorities and housing associations for that purpose must be considered.

Mr. McCartney: I note that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has come into the Chamber. Recently he wrote to the Secretary of State pleading with him not to build new homes in his constituency in case they affected his Conservative majority. Given the hon. and learned Gentleman's serious attitude towards building homes in his constituency, perhaps he will stay and give us his views on how he will solve homelessness, at least in his constituency.

Mr. Boateng: It would be interesting to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say about that, but I suspect that we may not get a response, let alone a satisfactory one.
We need to know from the Under-Secretary whether he recognises the need for the Department of the Environment to consider means of enabling authorities to continue developing leasing arrangements with housing associations and the private sector. What steps does he intend to take to give force to the recommendations of the Audit Commission and when will he publish its findings? We await the Minister's response to that and to the important questions that we have asked him.

Mr. John Fraser: I wish to raise with the Minister a limited point on amendment No. 166.
Amendment No. 166 amends paragraph 12(1)(h) of schedule 1 to change the definition of a mutual housing association. The amendment removes the cross-reference to the definition of a fully mutual housing association which is contained in part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985. In that Act a distinction is drawn between a fully mutual housing association, which does not have to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, and a co-operative housing association, which is a fully mutual co-operative but must be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
The difference is that, in section 15(3) of the Rent Act 1977, a tenancy which is created by a registered housing association—one which is registered under the 1965 Act—is not a protected tenancy for the purposes of the 1977


Act. If, on the other hand, the co-operative is not registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, the tenancies will be protected. The significance of that is that under this Bill it will not be possible to create a new protected tenancy. When the Bill becomes law, there will be no more protected tenancies. A tenant will have the protection only of an assured tenancy.
It is true that, even now, a tenancy granted by a co-operative housing association, which is registered under the 1965 Act and with the Housing Corporation, will not be secure. Although the tenants are neither protected nor secure, they have the protection of the overall monitoring and supervision of the Housing Corporation and the detailed protection which exists from membership of an industrial and provident society which is registered under the 1965 Act. If there is oppression, it is possible to make a complaint to the registrar. Thus, if a tenant of a co-operative that is not a secure tenancy made a complaint, the registrar could investigate and the tenant would be afforded some protection as a result of those rights.
The consequence of the amendments is that, in future, a fully mutual association not incorporated under the 1965 Act will not be capable of creating a protected tenancy or, by virtue of paragraph 12(1)(h) of schedule 1, of creating an assured tenancy. Therefore, a tenant of an unincorporated mutual housing association would have no protection under the Rent Act 1977 or the assured tenancy provisions. That is going too far, and I wonder whether the Minister has made a mistake in the definition of a fully mutual housing association. It is difficult to understand the definition of property given in part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985. I ask the Minister to study that and say that, if necessary, there will be further revisions to the Lords amendments to make it clear that the only exemption from assured tenancies will be those granted by co-operatives registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.

Mr. Tony Banks: Amendment No. 1 anables housing associations to create temporary lettings for homeless families, especially where it has been decided that they have made themselves intentionally homeless. We clearly welcome the amendment.
I did not intend to speak until the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) made a peculiarly insensitive intervention, which is in character, but as he is not present I shall not be ruder than that.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire suggested that the noble Earl of Caithness appreciated the plight of the homeless. I shall not disparage the noble Earl of Caithness because I do not know him and he does not know me. If he visited my advice surgery on a Friday evening, his eyes would be widened in alarm, despair and despondency at the nature of the problems that we face in the east end. The Under-Secretary must understand that Labour Members feel strongly about these problems because it is mainly in our constituencies that they are so concentrated. I should dearly like the Secretary of State to visit my advice surgery, as I have said on a number of occasions. I dealt with 30 housing cases last Friday, with which neither I, housing associations nor the council could deal.
An enormous crisis is developing in London, but the Government are oblivious to it. I do not know whether

that is intentional or accidental, but the Secretary of State must experience at first hand what is happening in our capital city and other cities throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) mentioned people who intentionally make themselves homeless and young women who become pregnant intentionally to obtain accommodation through the local authority. That happens, and it is the mark of people's despair. Young women think that if they become pregnant they will enhance and improve their chances of being housed by the council. They are sadly mistaken in their action, but it shows how desperate some people are becoming. Regularly, 17 and 18-year-old women with one or two children visit my advice surgery and say, "We have been put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but we thought we would get a council flat. They have put us in Westminster, central London or Romford. We are away from the schools and our family. What can we do?" All that I can do is to console them. One feels powerless and angry about the problems created by Government intransigence and by their not allowing local authorities sufficient funds to build the accommodation that is so desperately needed. It is ludicrous that it costs far more to keep a family in bed-and-breakfast accommodation than it does for the local authority to provide accommodation. That is the economics of the madhouse and the social fact of Thatcherism.
6.45 pm
Young women are becoming desperate and think that if they get pregnant they will obtain council accommodation. The Minister knows that that is not so, as do we. Before Conservative Members condemn them, throw their hands in the air and say, "It is their fault and responsibility," they should reflect on their problems—in between laughing. I am sure that this is a humorous aspect of the debate to Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) nods his head. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is humorous, there is something wrong with his sense of humour. It seems peculiarly perverted and sick. If he came to my advice surgery, he could see how desperate people are becoming.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: I was interested in the conversation that was taking place here

Mr. Battle: Have it outside, not in here.

Mr. Patnick: I do not need any advice from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).

Mr. Banks: It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Hallam listened. On Second Reading debate of the Rate Support Grants Bill, he showed himself to be very interested in the affairs of the London borough of Newham. We were grateful for his interest, but rather bemused about why he should be so interested. We welcome the interest of Conservative Members as long as they draw lessons from it. The lesson to be drawn from having an interest in the London borough of Newham is the enormous housing crises that it is experiencing.
I hope that, unlike the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary will accept my invitation to visit my Friday night advice surgery. I realise that he probably has his own surgery, so I shall reciprocate by visiting his and giving him the benefit of my advice. If he does not want to accept my reciprocal offer, will he please come to Newham and see at first hand what is going on?

Mr. Trippier: With the leave of the House. It is nothing short of a tragedy that every time the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) addresses the House he devalues the currency of his contribution by making personal remarks about people inside the Chamber or, on this occasion, outside it. Unlike the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), he is not funny.
I point out to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who made allegations against my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside that there are three Ministers responsible for housing in the Department of the Environment—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside and myself. It is rich that the allegation was made by a member of the Social and Liberal Democratic party. Each hon. Member of that party, because of its paucity of Members, has at least 27 subjects or responsibilities to cover.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is trying to answer a valid point with an invalid one. On his own notepaper, the noble Earl of Caithness is described as the "Minister for Housing". If the Minister informed himself about my party and our disposition, he would know that we each shadow a Department. This is the end of the Session; I am finishing off the Bill because I started it. I shall then hand over to one person who will shadow the Minister and his colleagues. The work load when one person shadows seven is enormous, but we manage pretty well.

Mr. Trippier: That is a matter of conjecture, not a statement of fact. I was merely making the point that I should have thought that it was worth one member of the hon. Gentleman's party concentrating solely on housing. At least we have three who are working at it.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked whether the amendments cover private landlords, not merely housing associations. The answer is in the affirmative. There is nothing sinister in believing that there is an important role for private landlords in helping local authorities to discharge their homelessness functions. The amendments will make that possible.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to mortgage repossessions as a percentage of the total number of mortgages granted. The figure remains small. There was a rise in the proportion of building society borrowers in arrears from 0·8 per cent. at the end of 1986 to 0·85 per cent. at the end of 1987, but that was still lower than the June 1987 figure of 0·97 per cent.

Mr. Battle: rose——

Mr. Trippier: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue. A number of Opposition Members went wide of the specific amendments. I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to the specific amendments, which refer to temporary, not permanent, accommodation.
The Department is looking closely at arrangements for transfer to ensure that councils recognise their continuing obligations to secure permanent accommodation for the homeless. The amendments relate solely to temporary accommodation. We will have an opportunity on Friday to debate these matters in detail. We have already received four reports of significance on this subject while reviewing

it and we expect another two, one of which came from the Audit Commission, as the hon. Member for Brent, South suggested.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman release details of his Department's report on homelessness, which I understand has been completed but has not yet been made publicly available, either in time for Friday's debate—that is obviously important—or, at the latest, in time for the beginning of the new Session, before any legislation is announced in the Gracious Speech?

Mr. Trippier: I can meet the latter point but not the former. We intend to publish that report.
I return to a specific suggestion made by the Audit Commission on homelessness, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South referred fleetingly. It has been suggested that we may not wish to see local authorities fulfilling their statutory obligations towards homelessness. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have no evidence that any authorities are in any way not fulfilling their statutory obligations. There is evidence via the Observer article last Sunday that there are a variety of diferent approaches to the way that local authorities deal with homelessness. That is of great concern to me and is looming large in the review before the Department. We must introduce more consistent procedures, and our review will consider that.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) made a preposterous suggestion that the Government intended somehow to privatise the homeless. Local authorities cannot delegate their statutory functions. Local authorities will remain responsible for securing permanent accommodation for the homeless. Much of the thrust of the Bill is to concentrate greater attention on the private sector and specifically more on housing associations. The Government believe that the development of the housing association movement—making houses available to those on lower incomes—will allow local authorities to concentrate much more on homelessness. I do not think that that is a matter of dispute between the two sides of the House.

Mrs. Mahon: The report from the Department of the Environment, "Large-scale Voluntary Transfers of Local Authority Housing to Private Bodies", which refers to a local housing authority's duty under section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and section 28 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, states:
This might be done by entering into contracts with landlords in the area (which might well include the purchasers of the council stock) to provide the necessary accommodation. Similar arrangements would also be acceptable in relation to housing adapted for disabled people or those with special needs.
Does the Minister agree with that?

Mr. Trippier: The point to which I was trying to draw the attention of the House was that local authorities are hardly, if ever, criticised by the Opposition for not dealing with the problems of the homeless. It would be ludicrous for me to suggest that all local authorities can be criticised in a general way. The Opposition must accept, if not publicly then privately, that there is a correlation between the number of empty properties, or voids, within a local authority area and the number of people who are homeless.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: That is not true.

Mr. Trippier: I did not say "direct" correlation; there must be some correlation. It would be unacceptable for the Opposition to believe that the local authorities must improve the management of the housing stock and turn round the empties within a shorter time to create a number of homes which would then come back on to the market. The Audit Commission said exactly that. It said that if empties were turned around within three weeks—the experience in London is more in line with 11 weeks—it would bring 20,000 net houses back on to the market.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for visiting my constituency and the housing estate on which I live. The hon. Gentleman came across a problem which is the direct opposite of his suggestion. It was an estate which had been refurbished using public sector money and local authority expenditure, and which had new roofs, new heating systems and a new security system. That estate has been boarded up and it may be pulled down. Those refurbished flats cannot find lets. Young homeless people cannot afford the rents because of the changes in housing benefit regulations. Only a fortnight ago the Minister recognised that problem and agreed to come back to me with suggestions on how to deal with it.

Mr. Trippier: When I agreed to go back—I am prepared to go back to the hon. Gentleman's constituency—it was with a view to the local housing authority taking steps to direct refurbishment more specifically to the needs of those people who need the houses, whether they are homeless or not.

Mr. Boateng: rose——

Mr. Trippier: I should like to proceed, because I have given way a number of times and am anxious that we should come to the end of our consideration of the Lords amendments.
It is strange if the Opposition do not accept the correlation between the number of empties, the speed of turnround and the number of homeless. It may sound dramatic, but if I were to say that empty council homes mock the overcrowded and the homeless, quite a number of Opposition Members would agree. If I were to say that council homes are empty through inefficiency, I should have thought that the Opposition would be prepared to accept that, but many do not. The hon. Member for Brent, South does not, so let me deal with him.
I have a statement which was made by the Labour chairman of the Hackney housing services committee, Councillor Brynley Heaven, who admits that council homes are empty through inefficiency. He continues:
Nothing is more important for a housing service than to make the best possible use of all its stock. If we can't show that we are using the homes we already have properly and efficiently, very few people are going to take our case for public investment seriously.
I could not have put it better myself.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Has the Minister finished his speech?

Mr. Trippier: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

7 pm

Mr. Soley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I had no intention of speaking again until I heard the Minister's appalling speech. If he carries on in this way, he will go the same way as his two predecessors. He did not even begin to answer the debate, which is about the law. It is not about the subject that will be debated on Friday. The debate on Friday about homelessness will not change the law. The questions that we put to the Minister related to changes in the law, but he totally ignored them.
The question is not about empty council houses. Every local authority agrees that there is an element of inefficiency in its organisation, just as there is an element of inefficiency in housing associations, but, on the whole, both local authorities and housing associations are efficient. At any one time, only about 2·5 per cent. of their properties are standing empty. All local authorities and housing associations accept that a small element of the 2·5 per cent. of properties standing empty is due to inefficiency; the percentage will differ from one local authority or housing association to another. However, when the Minister suddenly changed the topic, he did not tell us that no less than 5·9 per cent. of Government-owned properties are standing empty.

Mr. Trippier: rose——

Mr. Soley: Sit down for a moment.
One in five of all Metropolitan police houses are standing empty. No fewer than 60 to 70 flats at Wormwood Scrubs are standing empty. They have been empty for nine years. Victorian houses with gardens and three, four or five bedrooms as well as flats that belong to the Home Office are to be bulldozed—for what? A car park and landscaping.

Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: No. The Minister will not open his ears to the problem. When his predecessor, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), went to Southend, which has a Conservative-controlled council, she was told that, because of the Government's economic policies, Southend could not cope with its homelessness. Local authority after local authority, both Tory and Labour, has said the same to him.
I am not interested in having that argument now; we can have it on Friday. It will be a good opportunity to debate it. If the Minister wants to deal with it, he can deal with it then, but the House wants an answer to this debate.

Mr. Trippier: rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall give way now to the Minister. I hope that he will deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

Mr. Trippier: The truth is that it was not I who changed the topic. The hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) changed the topic. They used the debate to ask questions about homelessness. I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's question in the first minute of answering the debate, but he was not prepared to listen. He was talking to his hon. Friends.

Mr. Soley: The Minister did not answer my questions. I was listening to him. All he did was answer the first point. In case he does not understand the amendment, as I suspect he does not, may I say that we are looking at Lords amendment No. 4. The Minister did not answer the questions that we asked about that amendment. He just talked about temporary accommodation. He got into difficulties when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). When he said that this has got nothing to do with privatisation, my hon. Friend rightly intervened. All of us have received information from the Department of the Environment; it implies that it is acceptable for local authorities to enter into contracts with private landlords. What does that mean if it does not mean privatising the homeless?

Mr. Trippier: rose——

Mr. Soley: Before the Minister gets agitated again, let him listen to the problem so that he can begin to answer it. If a local authority is left with no housing, having transferred all of it under the existing or the proposed legislation, it still has a duty under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 to house the homeless. That is agreed, although there may be arguments about whether the Minister intends to abandon that Act or to undermine it—

Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley: No; the Minister must listen; he is not even listening properly. [Interruption.] I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker is listening properly, but the Minister is not listening properly.
If a landlord is the only landlord in the area who is willing to take the homeless and he keeps them in his accommodation for too long, he will then, as a result of the amendment, be under certain legal obligations that he will seek to avoid. Our questions to the Minister dealt with what would happen then to the homeless. Will they be moved to another landlord, and what will they do if there is no other landlord? Will they be given back to the local authority, and what will the local authority do with them if it does not have accommodation for the homeless? What will happen if a local authority, either deliberately or by chance because the landlord does not realise it, allows a family to stay in the accommodation for longer than the period provided for in the amendment?
The Minister did not address those questions. The nearest he came to it was to say that this was only a temporary problem, but that is not the point. The problem is what will happen when a council puts homeless people into accommodation, the landlord says that they will have to leave and there is no alternative accommodation for them.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister seek the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Trippier: The hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman described could arise, but in the discussions to date, with local authorities wishing to transfer all their stock and housing associations proposing to take over that stock, willingness has been expressed to provide nomination rights to local authorities specifically to house homeless applicants. That willingness would be built into their contractual arrangements.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The House is being treated with contempt by the Government. During the last few months there have been ministerial changes, procrastination and concessions that were then removed. Tonight a new Under-Secretary of State is not prepared to tell the House what is to happen to thousands of homeless people. It is not good enough for him to say that the Government are discussing with the new landlords the nomination rights that may be agreed between the various parties. We are referring to statutory rights and duties under the law to protect thousands of homeless people.
This Minister comes from the north-west. I invite him to come to Manchester and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) wants to intervene, he should stand up. His comments on the Bill were a disgrace. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and make a relevant contribution, he should stand up and I would then give way.
Again we ask the Under-Secretary of State to take point by point the questions that have been asked about amendments Nos. 1 and 4 to the Housing Bill. During the last two hours my hon. Friends have asked question after question about its implications. When we have attended public meetings and have met tenant groups, people have scoffed at the way in which this Government have said not one word about the homeless and what is to happen to them.
When, eventually, we pin the Government down to discuss homelessness, the Minister will not answer the questions. We need to know what will happen to people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at the end of the contract. Will the Minister tell us, and local authorities that have made arrangements with private landlords, what will happen to homeless people at the end of the contract? Will they be moved on and on statutorily from private landlord to private landlord? Are the Government creating an army of homeless people?
Will the Minister have a chat with the Minister of State and give us the answers to the questions that we have asked during the past two hours?

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 5

SECURITY OF TENURE

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 41, at end insert—
and, accordingly, the service by the landlord of a notice to quit shall be of no effect in relation to a periodic assured tenancy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Trippier]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 10 and 169.

Mr. Battle: I know that Lords amendment No. 6 is a clarifying amendment, but it would mean that a landlord will need a court order to—[Interruption.]

Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to have two debates in the Chamber at the same time? I cannot hear my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. Will hon. Members who are not taking part please retire from the Chamber.

Mr. Battle: The amendment would——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not taking part in the debate please either cease speaking or withdraw from the Chamber?

Mr. Battle: If Lords amendment No. 6 is accepted, a landlord will need a court order to bring an assured periodic tenancy to an end and the notice to quit method will become irrelevant. I should like the Minister to confirm that, rather than merely to move the amendment formally, as there is an assumption that any applicant for a court order will need to have that action preceded by a notice of proceedings for possession. I assume that that principle will he underlined and not undermined. It is a small point, but what I have suggested should be confirmed so that people know where they stand.
A more serious issue is at stake in Lords amendment No. 8. As the Bill stands, clause 7 ties possession action to grounds for possession. The amendment would break that tie for mortgagees—building societies and banks. It appears that a mortgagee would have an arbitrary right to possession. If the tie is broken, institutional privilege will be built into the Bill, as the county court will be able only to suspend the order to give the occupier time to pay by instalments.
There is an important principle at stake. Should mortgagees have special treatment and not have to abide by the general rule? Why are mortgagees being exempted from the general rule? Possession should be linked to grounds for possession. We have had enough rows about grounds for possession and the changes in those grounds, but I hope that the Minister will be prepared to say that he will look into the matter because possession in these circumstances means eviction.
The Minister thought that I spoke about evicted mortgagors earlier, but I did not. He may have mistaken my constituency. I posed questions about the statutory responsibilities of local authorities. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter, as evicted mortgagors represent a high and increasing number of households accepted by local authorities as homeless.
7.15 pm
Will the Minister give us an undertaking that mortgage possession grounds cannot be used by business expansion scheme shareholders? We all know that the Budget enabled people to get up £500,000 by setting up a business expansion scheme in private rented property. Will BES shareholders be able to use the clause to get round grounds for possession? The Minister owes it to the House to make that absolutely plain. Will he confirm that BES shareholders will not be classed as mortgagees?
When speaking about Lords amendment No. 10, the Minister in another place said that the issue would be dealt with by regulation. I would like the Minister to repeat that pledge. As he cannot bring it upon himself to make such provision through a clause in the Bill, will he confirm that regulations will cover the point? If not, we are acting in the dark as we are being asked to support proposals whose impact we do not know.
Lords amendment No. 169 ensures that landlords cannot use ground 6 to evict a tenant when the tenant was

not aware that development was a possibility when he or she took on the tenancy. Members of the Committee will remember that ground 6 changes a discretionary provision into a mandatory one. If a landlord intends to redevelop a property—it might be a flat or a room—the landlord can use the ground to get the tenant out.
We argued in Committee, it was argued in another place and we still argue, that ground 6 is crucial as it provides far wider scope for people to be evicted than does the Bill. It has been generally accepted in landlord and tenant legislation that if a landlord wishes to seek possession on mandatory grounds, the tenant must have been told that that was a possibility when he or she took on the tenancy. It is crucial that we do not break with that practice. We must ensure that tenants do not lose rights.
Grounds 1 to 5—the other non-fault grounds—require the landlord to ensure that the tenant knows about the possibility of eviction when he or she takes up a tenancy. Ground 6 is the exception. There is no justification for treating it as a special case. The Minister in another place said of landlords that they can use ground 6 only in respect of new tenants who knew that development was a possibility when they took on the tenancies:
A landlord who buys a property may not know what his long-term intentions are. It may be clear that there are development possibilities, or it may be an extremely remote prospect. A new tenant who takes on an assured tenancy takes it on against this background. It is one of the grounds for repossession which could be used in certain circumstances. A tenant will make his own assessment of the likelihood of its being used and he can be confident that it cannot be used if there is a possibility of doing the development work around him."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; Vol. 501, c. 402–3.]
As I cannot question the Earl of Caithness, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to explain how the tenant can have such knowledge in advance. The Earl argued that it is a factor that tenants should take into consideration when considering whether to accept a tenancy, but many take up a tenancy as a result of seeing an advertisement in a newspaper or corner shop window. There is no legal document or legal arrangement. The prospective tenant sees the advertisement and often finds himself knocking on a door during the evening to discuss with the landlord the terms and conditions. The prospective tenant does not arrange for a survey to be prepared and he will not be concerned with the development potential of the flat into which he wishes to move.
If landlords are able to go to court to obtain possession on development grounds, they will have a powerful instrument with which to evict tenants whom they want to get out of their property. These matters are important and the amendment should not be accepted on the nod. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to assure tenants that ground 6 will not be an instrument of eviction.

Mr. MacCartney: In my constituency an elderly lady was almost persuaded to leave the house in which she had been living for over 20 years on the ground that the landlord wished to redevelop and improve the property. He began to threaten her when he called for the rent the following week. I found that a planning application had been submitted as the landlord wished to convert the property into a hairdressing shop, and I contacted the local authority's housing aid centre. The lady would have been removed from the property because of the landlord's wish to convert it into commercial premises and to create homelessness. It seems that unscrupulous landlords will be


in an even stronger position when they come to deal with elderly ladies, for example. They will be able to winkle them out of their property for reasons other than providing homes for the homeless.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. He is saying that landlords could use ground 6 to drive a coach and horses through any justice for tenants. Landlords could gain access to property by the unjustifiable use of the redevelopment ground. I ask the Minister to accept that there should be inserted in the Bill the principle of natural justice. We should make it plain that the redevelopment clause cannot be brought into play after the tenancy has started. It is clear that ground 6 could be used by a landlord as an excuse to get someone out of his property.
The Earl of Caithness said:
The problem lies in trying to draft a provision which is sufficiently comprehensive to cover all the options.
I submit that the Minister has a responsibility to ensure that the Bill covers all the options. Tenants should not be left in a position of extreme vulnerability. Lord Caithness added:
It is in the nature of shady organisations that if you leave a loophole they will find it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; Vol. 501, c. 404.]
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that ground 6 will not provide a giant loophole through which unscrupulous landlords—I do not mean all landlords—will drive a coach and horses. I concede that properties might be improved, but the improvements will be made at the expense of the tenants who are thrown out of their homes. Landlords will then bring in other tenants, who will be charged higher rents. In such circumstances, landlords will benefit and tenants will lose. In other instances I shall be interested to see whether the redevelopment takes place.
I invite the Minister to respond to the detailed issues which I have raised, instead of seeking to nod through the amendment formally.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is right to be concerned, especially about Lords amendment No. 169, to which I shall direct my remarks. Ground 6 of schedule 2 is a mandatory ground for possession. It sets out the circumstances in which a landlord can gain possession. It refers to a landlord who
intends to demolish or reconstruct … or to carry out substantial works
within the property. One of the conditions is that it must be impossible to do that work with the tenant in occupation.
I am in the fortunate position of being one step ahead of the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Since 3 March, when the issue was raised by me in Committee—at that time the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) was the Minister for Housing and Planning—I have been pursuing an obvious constituency concern. The Minister gave what I consider to be an unsatisfactory reply. The House will be aware that I represent a constituency in which the opportunity for development at great profit is now enormous, especially along the river. I raised the horrendous prospect that new landlords who took over council property under the provisions in part IV might be able to evict tenants by the use of ground 6, which is mandatory.
The Minister was more than dismissive of my concern. He said:
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made my flesh creep by mentioning the terrifying prospect of developers redeveloping a flat and … using ground 7"—
which is now ground 6—
to turn people out. Fortunately, if we read schedule 2 we will see that that cannot happen when a person has paid a consideration for the reversion of tenancy. Therefore, that spectre need not be raised."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 3 March 1988, c. 1358.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that they should not pass between an hon. Member who is on his feet and the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I pursued the matter by telephone with the Department over the summer. As I did not receive a reply, I wrote to the newly appointed Minister on 3 November. The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that I am grateful for the reply which I received from Lord Caithness yesterday. First, his reply confirms that I was right to be concerned. It seems that there is a possibility—I do not want to be more alarmist than that—that a legal interpretation could confirm that tenants could be evicted. I refer to the advice which has been given, as I understand it, to Ministers.
The advice continues:
We have looked further at an argument which could affect the picture. This is whether it might in some cases be possible to argue that where, as a result of the consultation procedures, a contract existed between a landlord and tenant prior to transfer, providing for tenancy terms different in major respects from those of the preceding secure tenancy, a court might regard it as a new tenancy taking effect in equity immediately upon acquisition. Our legal advice is that the court would be likely to hold that the tenant was occupying by virtue of the old tenancy rather than a new tenancy in such circumstances. Should a court take the opposite view, however, ground 6 would in principle be available because, on that interpretation, the landlord's interest would have been acquired before the grant of the tenancy.
To say the least, the legality of the relevant provisions is uncertain. It can be said with justification that the provision could be used by unprincipled or profiteering landlords to evict tenants in the interests of redevelopment. That would be the position of those who had moved in after the property had been taken over. The tenants who transferred to the new landlord might all move or might all be asked to move. They might be replaced by new tenants. On any interpretation, they will have been granted new tenancies since the landlord acquired his interest in the dwelling house.
There is every reason to raise a spectre of eviction for present council tenants. In an area such as my constituency, accommodation that is now owned by the council could be bought at low cost and redeveloped as luxury accommodation. That would fail entirely to meet the needs of tenants. The redeveloped property would be outside the price range of the people who live in the property now.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will accept that there is enormous anxiety in areas close to city centres, in areas that have been developed, particularly in London where house prices have shot through the roof and land prices have escalated enormously, that such housing would be of interest to landlords who wished to redevelop it for up-market renting or for sale at the earliest opportunity. I was


grateful to hear that the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside accepted that anxiety and so was willing to give some undertakings through the Under-Secretary to the House.
7.30 pm
The Minister, in his reply to me dated 8 November, said:
I am happy to give you an assurance that we shall discuss with the Housing Corporation ways of ensuring through their use of undertakings attached to Tenants' Choice applicants' approvals that applicants will be required not to use the Ground even should the Courts rule that it was in principle available.
That is a clarification and a concession, and it is a substantial improvement.
First, will the Under-Secretary confirm that the Department of the Environment will ensure that the Housing Corporation makes that requirement in relation to tenants who are resident at the time of transfer and remain in properties and where all tenants are new since transfer? Secondly, will the Minister allay the substantial fears that exist which have in no way been inflamed by any comments that I have made? I have sought to explain that I was seeking clarification, that the Minister had assured me that there was no risk but that, since that did not appear certain to me as a matter of law, I would pursue the matter with the Department of the Environment.
Will the Minister allay the fears of many elderly and low-income tenants that any tenants'-choice-acquiring landlord will never be able to use that ground in any circumstances whatever? We need that assurance. It must be categorical. If it can be given, that will be a substantial improvement in an area about which tenants have been enormously worried.

Mr. Trippier: I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) accepts entirely from me that that was the sole intention in framing the legislation. There was one part that the hon. Gentleman missed out—I know, not intentionally—of the letter sent to him by my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside that I must stress and put on the record. We were satisfied that if the matter were taken to the courts they would uphold the decision. The difficulty on which the hon. Gentleman has focused is that there is no absolute legal certainty in the matter. Therefore, we are attaching belt and braces to this matter and I can give him the latter assurance that he sought.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked several detailed questions. The House will know that the amendments deal with the serving of notice to bring a tenancy to an end and the grounds on which possession may be sought.
Amendment No. 6 clarifies clause 5 and provides that a landlord may only bring an assured tenancy to an end by obtaining a court order. The amendment makes it clear that a separate notice to quit is not needed and that if it were served it would not bring the tenancy to an end.
Amendment No. 8, which is a technical amendment, provides that where an assured tenant has mortgaged his tenancy, as could happen with a shared ownership lease for example, and defaults on his mortgage, the provisions of part I will not affect the right of the mortgagee to repossession of the property.
Amendment No. 9 is a consequential amendment following the change made to the suitable alternative accommodation ground for possession. When the ground

was switched from part I to part II of schedule 2 as a consequence of representations by Opposition Members, the court was inadvertently given power to order possession under that ground during the course of a fixed-term tenancy. That would be inequitable, and the amendment puts the position right.
Amendment No. 10 makes it a requirement that the particulars of the ground on which the landlord is seeking possession should be set out in the notice. It was always our intention that the particulars should be set out in full in the prescribed form, but, again following Opposition concern in another place, the amendment makes it plain that that will be the case. It responds to those overtures.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister make it plain, because it is not clear from his reply, whether business expansion scheme shareholders will be exempt from the grounds for possession? Will they have the mortgagee's privilege of bypassing the grounds for possession?

Mr. Trippier: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman understands the business expansion scheme, but the shareholders in that scheme are far back from those who are proposed landlords. The hon. Gentleman may not understand how the BES works. I do not say that in any way discourteously.
I do not regard the point raised by the hon. Gentleman as a problem. The assurance that he seeks with regard to shareholders is not relevant. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was talking about a landlord. A landlord of a tenancy under the business expansion scheme will have to obtain possession in the normal way. The shareholders are far back. Many individuals will be investing money, as the hon. Gentleman probably understands. Therefore, the matter does not arise. We are talking about literally hundreds of people.
Amendment No. 169 relates to the development ground for   possession—ground 6. The ground does not apply where the landlord has purchased the property with a sitting tenant. if that sitting tenant were a Rent Act tenant, there could be an assured tenancy by succession stemming from that tenancy.
Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 are useful clarificatory or technical amendments and, as I have said, amendment No. 169 is a helpful extension of the protection of tenants, for which Opposition Members have asked.

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Hughes: As the Minister will have expected, I am grateful for his comments. However, he did not deal with one important matter, on which he may wish to take advice.
When a matter is dealt with by way of Government policy or undertaking, any court interpreting statute can look only at the face of the statute. Courts are not allowed, as a matter of law, to take into account debates in the House. That principle of legal interpretation is not used in this country, although it is used elsewhere. Will the Minister assure us that his assertion and assurance will apply as a matter of law as well as a matter of policy?
I am aware that the Minister can determine the rules and parameters within which the Housing Corporation works. I am also aware that it is the intention, as he has


clarified, that the ground should not be used. The problem is, as he will realise, that in a legal context he and his colleagues and the Housing Corporation will not be parties. A landlord who had acquired the property would be taking a tenant who was in the property to court, using a ground in statute. That is the perfectly reasonable justification for a question that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I hope that he will say that, as a matter of statute, if it is not certain now, the matter will be clarified in the early housing legislation expected after the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Trippier: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks on the latter point. As I said earlier, this is not a matter of law, and therefore not a matter of statute. However, I am not a qualified lawyer, so I shall take advice. The hon. Gentleman may have raised the question because he suspects that it is not. The reply that he has received from my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside made that abundantly clear. Otherwise, the direction that we are seeking to give to the Housing Corporation would be unnecessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 17

SUCCESSION TO ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCY BY SPOUSE

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 13, line 11, at end insert
or
(c) he became entitled to the tenancy as mentioned in section 39(5) below.

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that clause 17 establishes the right of succession to an assured tenancy for the spouse or common law spouse of a deceased assured tenant. The Bill in its original form did not provide a right of succession to an assured tenancy, but after strong representations from Opposition Members we agreed to provide a right of succession for the spouse of an assured tenant, as for someone who was living with the assured tenant as man and wife. However, it is a single right of succession for the spouse alone.
This amendment blocks a small loophole in the succession provision. Most new tenancies granted after commencement will be new assured tenancies—the results of new tenancy agreements. However, some tenants will become assured tenants by succession. They will be family members who have succeeded to a Rent Act tenancy. When a Rent Act tenant dies, his spouse will have the right to succeed to his Rent Act tenancy, and when that spouse dies, a family member who has fulfilled the residence qualification will have the right to succeed to an assured tenancy. That family member could then marry and, without this amendment, her or his husband or wife could succeed to the tenancy. So the property would have seen three successions in which the landlord had no say.
If the landlord is willing to grant an assured tenancy voluntarily to the spouse of the family member, that is an entirely different matter. However, we do not want to perpetuate successions over which the landlord has no

control. This is a small amendment to ensure consistency in our succession provisions, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This may be a small amendment, and one that closes a loophole, but the Minister will be aware that this provision was the subject of controversy in Committee. This clause deals with succession rights, and closing the loophole will take away a right that currently exists. It will be of harm specifically to single and elderly single people. There was opposition from all parts of the Committee upstairs to reducing succession rights. This amendment is a backward step, and I greatly regret that the Minister is asking us to agree with the Lords amendment.
The noble Earl who introduced this amendment in another place made it clear that he had heard it argued strongly that tenants would not automatically negotiate joint tenancies for a husband and wife, and therefore that great hardship would be caused to widows if there was no automatic succession.
I shall give the Minister a simple and obvious example of the way in which this change will remove the assurance of security. It is the example of an elderly mother of 85 living with her son, aged 60, and daughter-in-law, aged 55, who move in to the mother's home specifically to look after her. When the mother, as a Rent Act tenant, dies, the son could succeed to the assured tenancy, but when he dies his wife cannot do so. By that time, the wife might be elderly and well past pensionable age, yet she will be prevented from succeeding to the tenancy by this amendment.
The arguments are known to the Government; they put the arguments themselves in another place. It is an unsatisfactory element of this Bill that succession will be denied to those who are vulnerable and need the security of their homes.
The Government take the philosophical view that three successive tenancies are bad. They are not. I can think of many constituents, as can other right hon. and hon. Members, who will suffer greatly from this amendment. My hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment asking the House to disapprove of it, but it has not been taken. However, I give notice that we shall oppose Lords amendment No. 11 if it is put to the House later this evening.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We share the view of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that this is not just a small, technical amendment, as described by the Minister. It touches on a major point of principle that was debated at great length in Committee and that divided this House on a number of occasions during earlier stages of the Bill.
The Minister says that the Government do not want three successions without the landlord having any control. That is an insult to the tenants of private landlords. Under this amendment, the relative of a tenant who dies will not be allowed to continue living in what has become home. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Trippier: No, we are not.

Mr. Roberts: The Minister, from a sedentary position, contradicts me; let us consider the facts. Under this amendment, when a person succeeds to a Rent Act


tenancy, the spouse will have no right of succession—even though clause 17 gives a right of succession to spouses of assured tenants. If someone has lived somewhere for longer than two years, I would call that his home. Thus, for a relative to be unable to succeed in such circumstances is to deny to him the right to continue living in his own home.
It used to be the case that relatives entitled to succeed needed a six-month residential qualification. Under the Housing Act 1985, the qualification period was reduced to one year, but under this legislation, there will be a two-year residential qualification. Is the Minister saying that, if a person has lived somewhere for two years, that still cannot be deemed to be his home? I say that it certainly is.
In establishing the concept of the assured tenancy—in the past, we have made it clear that the only assured thing about these tenancies, unlike those of the 1980 Act, is that there is nothing assured about them and that they are very insecure—the Government go on to take away what limited rights relatives and spouses have. The whole idea behind this legislation and of destroying security of tenure among the tenants of private landlords, is that private landlords will more easily be able to get vacant possession of their property. That is what the Government argue.
That in itself will be a major factor in increasing homelessness. I do not want another debate on that aspect because we dealt with the matter of homelessness in the first group of amendments. Nevertheless, it is wrong for Conservative Members to claim that the main cause of homelessness in Britain is the same as in every other country in the western world, that it is a problem that will never go away, and that it has nothing to do with housing policies but is a social problem. This is an example of Government legislation that could, by taking away security of tenure, increase the number of people presenting themselves as homeless.
Under Lords amendment No. 11, if an assured tenant dies, the relatives living in the same house can be made homeless. If relatives are not allowed to succeed to the tenancy, the individuals or families will have to go to the local authority and present themselves as homeless. They will not have been made so intentionally but will have been put in that dilemma by the Government's legislation. Let not the Minister say that we are simply blocking a small loophole. This is a major issue of principle relating directly to our debates on succession. We believe that anyone who lives for a reasonable time in the tenancy of a private landlord should have succession when the tenant dies.
There was such a case some time ago in my constituency. Two elderly sisters had lived together for most of their lives in a terraced property, renting from a private landlord. The sister who died first was the tenant. The other sister, who had been there for 40 or 50 years, was going to be refused the right of succession. Only when we invited Granada Television to come along and interview the sisters did the landlord decide to change his mind—or her mind; it was difficult to ascertain exactly who the landlord was, although we knew the identity of the agents.
It would have destroyed that elderly person to have to accept that the house that had been her home for 30 or 40 years would be taken away, and this little "technical" amendment will result in many such cases.

Mr. Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I was not in the Chamber for all his speech. I am sure that he has no wish to mislead the

House now any more than he did when he cited similar examples in Committee. But he has just reminded the House that the two sisters had lived together for 30 or 40 years—he said 50 years first and then amended that. He will acknowledge from his experience of housing law that those two sisters would have been controlled and then regulated tenants, with all the security of the courts. The younger sister, being a direct relation of the deceased, would have succeeded to the tenancy.

Mr. Roberts: They did not have that kind of tenancy. If they had, we would have succeeded when we put the lawyers on to the case, without having to involve Granada Television.
What the Minister describes as the right of relatives to inherit tenancies was the reasonably fair position berore the present legislation was presented. The Government must admit that their avowed purpose is to make it more difficult for tenants to remain if landlords want to evict them. The Government argue as a matter of principle that one of the reasons for the lack of an adequate supply of private rented accommodation is that landlords cannot get rid of tenants easily enough, and cannot obtain vacant possession when they want it.
The amendment is intended to enable landlords to obtain vacant possession when someone dies who has succeeded to an assured tenancy following the death of a spouse who was a Rent Act tenant. All relatives from that time would cease to have tenancy rights. The Minister admitted that he would make the third succession and any beyond it illegal if the landlord did not want to grant succession.
We think that that is wrong, and that people should have security of tenure whether they are tenants or not, as long as it is clear that the accommodation has been their main home for a reasonable period. We thought that six months was reasonable. We thought that a year, under the 1985 Act, was reasonable. Now the period is two years, and even so the Government in their miserable amendment are trying to take away tenants' rights and to increase the possibility of homelessness. The Minister says that they are trying to close a loophole. We say that they are trying to destroy the major principle of security of tenure.

Mr. Trippier: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the Minister the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Trippier: I ask the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) very seriously to read Hansard tomorrow. When he came out with his example, I was convinced that the person to whom he referred could succeed to the tenancy. I subsequently received advice from the Box that confirmed that I was right. As I understood it, the wife in his example was the tenant. The son who succeeded to the Rent Act tenancy would he the first successor. The hon. Gentleman said that the daughter-in-law could not succeed to the tenancy. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that that person could succeed as a second successor.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may well be right. It depends on the status of the original tenant. If the mother


had inherited the tenancy from her husband, for example, her carers who moved in might find themselves without succession rights.

Mr. Trippier: I shall not delay the House for much longer, and I have no doubt that there will be an exchange of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
This is the point that I wished to make to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). If there had been two successions to a Rent Act tenancy—which is what the hon. Gentleman was talking about; he was talking about depriving people of rights that they already had—and the second successor was a family member, the family member's spouse would have no automatic right of succession. There has never been such a right. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to give the House the impression that we are taking away rights that already exist.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I assure the Minister that I would not suggest that any rights were being given that did not already exist, and I am sure that what he says is correct. But let us clarify the matter, because there was some confusion in the Minister's exchanges with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). When a wife or husband succeeds to an assured tenancy from a Rent Act tenant who dies, the next of kin—even if there has been a remarriage and there is another spouse—will not inherit that tenancy under the amendment.

Mr. Trippier: I could not have made this clearer than I did in my opening remarks. I gave my own example—we have had several since. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wishes to divide the House, but I seriously ask whether he knows on what he is dividing it. We are not depleting the current legislation or removing tenants' rights.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister must remember what his colleagues said in the Lords—that the amendment was to close a loophole because it was not Government policy to allow three people to succeed in a row. Loopholes have been closed elsewhere, but not in this context. At present there is a guarantee of security where the tenant was protected under the Rent Act. We want to sustain that, and the Minister wants to take it away. That is a very good reason for dividing, if the Minister persists in his aim.

Mr. Trippier: We do not want to take the right away. I suggest that it does not exist, but the hon. Gentleman is right to divide the House if that is what he believes. We are not prepared to extend the legislation to cover a third succession.

Mr. Roberts: Does clause 17 give the right of succession for spouses of assured tenancies, except where it is the third succession? Is that the case or not?

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 185.

Division No. 480]
[7.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Allason, Rupert
Ashby, David


Amos, Alan
Aspinwall, Jack


Arbuthnot, James
Atkins, Robert





Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Baldry, Tony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Batiste, Spencer
Hunter, Andrew


Bellingham, Henry
Irvine, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Irving, Charles


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jack, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jackson, Robert


Body, Sir Richard
Janman, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jessel, Toby


Boswell, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bowis, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Brazier, Julian
Key, Robert


Bright, Graham
Kilfedder, James


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knapman, Roger


Burns, Simon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Burt, Alistair
Knowles, Michael


Butcher, John
Lang, Ian


Butler, Chris
Latham, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carrington, Matthew
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Carttiss, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Colvin, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Couchman, James
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Madel, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maples, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Gregory, Conal
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heddle, John
Page, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hill, James
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raffan, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy






Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rost, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Trippier, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Hon Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. David Maclean and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Michael Fallon.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Ashdown, Paddy
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barron, Kevin
Eastham, Ken


Battle, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Beckett, Margaret
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronald


Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Flannery, Martin


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blunkett, David
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buckley, George J.
Gordon, Mildred


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clay, Bob
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Coleman, Donald
Holland, Stuart


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric





John, Brynmor
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Redmond, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robertson, George


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lamond, James
Rooker, Jeff


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wall, Pat


Morley, Elliott
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N.


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Malcolm Bruce and


Prescott, John
Mrs. Ray Michie.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20

ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCIES

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 26, after "is" insert "a fixed term tenancy"

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17.

Mr. Tony Banks: These amendments relate to assured shorthold tenancies—a difficult phrase to say if one has paid a visit to the Strangers' Bar, but I have not so far this evening and will not for some time yet.
The Government know that we are very concerned about assured shorthold tenancies because we believe that this form of letting will destroy security of tenure in the private rented sector. There is a play on words here. Heard the first time, "assured tenancy" sounds like something


that might enhance the rights of tenants—a good thing; but the Government have perverted the English language, and assured tenancy actually diminishes certain rights.
These amendments tighten up the definition of assured shorthold tenancies, so I welcome them because they will ensure that such tenancies can be created only in extremely limited circumstances, when landlords and tenants are fully aware of the implications of the bargains they are about to strike. We discussed that at length in Committee but could not persuade the Government of our case. Fortunately, these Lords amendments provide what we sought then.
Lords amendment No. 12 includes in its definition the words "a fixed term tenancy", which clarify what an assured shorthold letting for a short period is, the minimum being six months.
Lords amendment No. 13 deals with the contractual terms of a tenancy. We are pleased to agree with it, as it provides that, if a landlord inserts a break clause into a shorthold agreement, the tenancy cannot be an assured shorthold tenancy. We are concerned that the wholesale creation of assured shorthold tenancies will lead to the destruction of security of tenure for private tenants.
The Bill creates two new forms of tenure—assured tenancy and assured shorthold tenancy. The first, we are told, will give some security with market rents; the other provides less security, but with correspondingly lower rents. The point that the Government have conspicuously failed to answer relates to assured shorthold tenancies. If a tenancy is for six months, how is the tenant to enforce his right to a reduced rent? The Government have told us repeatedly that landlords do not always want to twist tenants, and have always assumed that tenant and landlord come together as equally powerful parties. That might be so in legal terms under this legislation, but the reality is quite different.
We all know many examples of tenants' rights being ignored by landlords. Obviously, the former can go to law to try to pursue their rights, but the people we are talking about often do not possess the economic wherewithal to do that and may not understand what their rights are. That is why we have always tried to load the balance in favour of the tenant. That does not necessarily make us an anti-private landlord party, but experience and our constituency caseloads show us that things must be weighted in favour of the tenant.
There are far more private landlords who are crooked and unfair twisters than there are tenants who are prepared to dupe landlords. I agree that such cases happen from time to time, but they are rare. In the great preponderance of constituency casework of Labour Members—and, I suspect, of Conservative members in inner cities as well—it is the tenant who is at a disadvantage and the landlord who is deceiving and tricking the tenant. That is why we always want to be seen as the party of the tenant—whether the private or the council tenant. We are proud to be the party of the tenant and we are not prepared to accept the Government's criticism that we are wholly one-sided, because we speak from experience.
If the tenant asks for a reduced rent or applies to a rent assessment committee, the landlord's obvious response will be, "OK, you can get out at the end of your tenancy."

That is true of the other rights that tenants have. What about repairs, for example? Hon. Members will know of cases in which tenants have asked for repairs to be done but the landlord has ignored them. The roof may be leaking, for example. How do the Government think—

Mr. Heddle: I rise to ask whether it is reasonable for the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has been in the House for many years, to be reading the daily newspaper rather than listening to the words of so-called wisdom of his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?

Mr. Winnick: I can show you, Mr. Speaker, or the Clerk that I have been making marks of rented accommodation that is available in London and the rents payable. I shall use that information at a later stage. I have been marking page 38 of the Evening Standard, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, and I consider it to be part of my responsibility to do so.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman should apologise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is probably just about in order.

Mr. Banks: I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's explanation, because no one would read the Evening Standard for pleasure. He can be paying it such close attention only in the interests of research—although I must ask him who won the 3·30. I know that my hon. Friend is more than capable of carrying out research and listening to me at the same time—and he can probably carry out a number of other bodily functions at the same time.
I was talking about the case of a tenant asking a landlord to deal with a property that is in a state of disrepair, with, for example, a leaking roof. What is the tenant's position in such a case? Although there has been much criticism of local authorities because of the state of disrepair of some council properties, the fact cannot be avoided that the greater disrepair and dilapidation has been in the private sector. Conservative Members know that that is true. The most distressing cases that one deals with at constituency advice centres are those that occur in the privately rented sector.

Mr. Heddle: The hon. Gentleman has just reminded the House that his party is the party of the tenant. Will he confirm that it is in the private sector that the tenant has the rights and protection of the law against disrepair and that it was this Government who recently introduced the same rights for tenants with local authority landlords to protect them in cases where properties have been allowed to fall into disrepair?

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman's comments fly in the face of reality. I realise that he may be more interested in what my hon. Friends are doing than in listening to what I am saying. I was saying that, although rights will be given under the Bill, and although rights exist under other legislation, many tenants do not have the economic capacity or general awareness to pursue those rights. That is the point that I am trying to make. That is why, throughout the passage of the Bill, it has been the Labour party which has tried to tilt the balance in favour of the


tenant, to make the situation as straightforward and simple as possible and to ensure that the tenant has many rights without having to resort to the law.

Ms. Primarolo: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a tenant in the private sector withholds rent to secure repairs, that tenant will fall foul of a possession order, under the mandatory provisions of the Bill? What the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) has just said about protection on repairs is a load of rubbish. That protection will be superseded by the mandatory eviction provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is more direct in her language than I am, but I do not dissociate myself from her words. She has made a good point. A court will have no discretion over eviction for rent arrears. We shall debate later the provisions that deal with the right to buy, which include a scheme whereby tenants who want to buy their homes from the council can hold money back, if there is a delay, and put it into a fund that will effectively qualify as their mortgage payment in the future. The Government want to load everything against the local authority. They see the local authority as the enemy of the people.

Mr. Trippier: That is rubbish.

Mr. Banks: I do not know how much attention the Minister has paid to the Bill at various stages. We have found that not only the Bill but the general drift of legislation is based on the assumption that the local authority is the enemy of the people. I do not want to speak on a subject outside the scope of the amendment, but, as we are the party of the tenant, we consider the Government to be the enemy of the local authority. In their eyes, the local authorities can do nothing right. The House knows that taking all housing away from local authorities is on the Government's agenda. I ask Conservative Members to speak if that is not true. I see that no Conservative Members have risen to speak, so it is obviously true. We have discovered another item on the hidden agenda.

Mr. Soley: The previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who was sacked—although not for this reason—said that the Government took the view that councils should no longer be providing accommodation. That was also implied in the White Paper in October 1987, and other Ministers have said the same in Committee. They believe that local authorities have no role as providers of housing.

Mr. Banks: Too few people in this country know of the true intentions of the Conservative Government. Labour Members who have attended public meetings about the Bill have noticed a large number of elderly tenants there. We do our best to explain fairly and impartially what the Government seek to achieve. Unfortunately, that seems to frighten the audience more then if we made things up as we went along.
Many elderly tenants come to the meetings because they can remember what private landlords were like and they know that it was the local authority who removed them from the ghettoes of the private landlord. Even the worst local authority is infinitely better than the worst private landlord. That is why people are worried about the

Bill, which has nothing to do with the provision of additional housing but everything to do with trying to take the provision of housing away from local authorities.

Mr. McCartney: I have a copy of the Government's discussion paper on housing in rural areas which was issued on 5 July 1988. Paragraph 1 says:
Local authorities would increasingly act as enablers who would facilitate the provision of new housing by others".
Paragraph 3(1) says that there is a need to
extend the role of the housing associations in rural areas so that they can take over from local authorities some of their responsibility as the providers of new housing for rent".
The Government made it clear during the summer that they would remove local authorities from their role as providers of housing.

Mr. Banks: I accept the point that my hon. Friend has made, which we are diving home time and again. I only wish that more people outside the House, such as the council tenants who sit reading The Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express and The Star could read in those newspapers about what the Bill really intends, rather than reading about the latest fashion that has been draped over Princess Diana.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend referred to the elderly. I recently held a surgery in the town centre of Halifax where two out of three council tenants are elderly people. My hon. Friend's point about the past was repeatedly emphasised by elderly people who said, "Please tell the younger ones about the private landlords." The experiences that they related to me were quite shocking. I ask the Minister to consider the experiences of those elderly people, who do not want a return to the bad old days of the private landlord.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her experiences echo mine. Younger council tenants, and younger people generally, may not be aware of those circumstances. They have had their minds dulled by the propaganda of the Right-wing press and have not had the experiences that their mothers, fathers and grandparents have had.
People are worried about the Bill because they do not have the Government's confidence and faith in private landlords. The Government seem to have infinite faith in the ability of private landlords not only to meet our housing shortage but to do the decent thing by tenants. I do not know how they can maintain that position, because it seems to fly in the face of experience.

Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman returned to the matter that we are discussing, he would discover that amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 are designed to assist the tenant. They meet points raised by the Opposition either in the House or in another place to which we have responded positively. We have not heard much about that.

Mr. Banks: I made it quite clear to the Minister that I was speaking in favour of the amendments. I said at the beginning that we welcomed the fact that the Government gave way in the end; of course we welcome it. However, we need to spell out the implications of the Bill and the problems of tenants because we are the party of the tenants.

Mr. Trippier: What arrogance.

Mr. Banks: If the Minister feels miffed because I have not given him sufficient credit I shall gladly do so now. I shall give him all the credit he wants. I only wish that he had been so welcoming of our other proposals.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend should not give the Minister too much credit. To be fair, this Minister was not in the job at the time, but Ministers dealing with the Bill in Committee consistently refused to give genuine safeguards against serious harassment. Every organisation with experience of housing knows that the dangers of abuse are far greater under the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) knows that, too, especially in relation to the business expansion scheme—about which he has anxieties—which will also be covered by the Bill. Although the Government moved a little way when pushed by the Lords, the amendments go nowhere near solving the problems that my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. Banks: I just thought that the Minister was getting a little upset. As he is a new boy in this job, I do not want to get him too upset too early. There will be plenty of time to get him really upset. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will realise that my welcome was not excessive. Of course we welcome the amendments. We are very reasonable people. Reason is on our side, and it would be unreasonable and churlish of us not to admit that the Government have given way to pressure from the Opposition. It is the role of the Opposition to exert such pressure.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said that tenants had rights under the Bill. I was referring to the tenant who finds that the property in which he or she lives is in a state of disrepair and who goes to the landlord to ask him what he proposes to do about it. The landlord can say, "I shall kick you out of the property and get myself another shorthold tenant straight away." That can happen under the Bill.
If the tenant is so bold as to complain about the state of repair of the property and to seek to get the landlord's obligation to undertake repairs enforced, what progress is he or she likely to make? The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire knows better than I how long it takes to get a county court hearing for a case of breach of covenant of repairing obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Would the hon. Gentleman care to hazard a guess? Once a survey has been carried out and an application made for a hearing, months of delay may follow. In my constituency, tenants with excellent solicitors have not been able to obtain a full hearing until 18 months after their original complaint. That is crazy. The tenant may have rights, but unless those rights can be speedily, cheaply and easily enforced, they do not amount to much. Therefore, although I welcome the amendments, they beg an awful lot of questions.
Lords amendment No. 13 is welcome because it provides that a clause in the contract terminated before the end of the initial six-month period would ensure that the tenancy would not be an assured shorthold tenancy. Lords amendment No. 14 is less welcome, because the Government appear to be displaying paranoia that is unnecessary in the circumstances. They appear to be worrying about assured shorthold tenancies that have come to an end during their term either because the tenant has left or because some other change has taken place.

They are ensuring that if the tenancy starts again it remains an assured shorthold tenancy and does not become a full-blown assured tenancy.
Amendment No. 15 emphasises the distinction, so that when the original tenancy comes to an end, an assured tenancy is not created but the new tenancy is still an assured shorthold tenancy. Why does the Minister feel so strongly about those two amendments? I have been knocking around with the Bill for some time, but I still find some aspects difficult to understand.
Amendment No. 16 seems to play word games, and I cannot see the point of it or of amendment No. 17. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what amendments Nos. l6 and 17 achieve. I am sure that he has an excellent brief from his civil servants and I shall be pleased to hear precisely what the two amendments do.
Opposition Members would not wish to be churlish. We are pleased that our arguments have been listened to, and even if the amendments do not go half as far as we would want them to, we are prepared to accept them.

Mr. Trippier: It is clear from the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that he does not intend to divide the House. I shall briefly address the questions that he puts.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 are designed to plug the loophole in the shorthold procedure which could work to the disadvantage of tenants. Clause 20 provides that, to qualify as an assured shorthold tenancy, a tenancy must be granted for a certain term of at least six months. We do not want landlords to be able to circumvent that requirement by granting six-months tenancies with a power to determine the tenancy—in other words, bring it to an end—at some point before the minimum six-months term is up.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17 are aimed at the case where an assured shorthold tenancy ceases at some time during its life to qualify as an assured tenancy because the tenant no longer occupies the property as his principal home.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has given the impression that Ministers—specifically, those in the Department of the Environment—are not in favour of local government or of housing in any way being managed by local authorities. The vast majority of Ministers in the Department of the Environment come from a background of local government and we are very strongly in favour of local government where it is efficiently run. The sad fact is that in many cases it is not efficiently run, as I tried to illustrate in an earlier debate.

Mr. Soley: In view of what has been said by the Minister's predecessors, that is an important point. Is the Minister saying that he wants local authorities to continue to have a role in the provision of housing into the future, and if so, that the Government have given up their attempt to make local authorities get rid of all their properties? Does he want local authorities to be providers or only enablers as in the terms of the White Paper? That was the distinction drawn. What is the Minister saying to the House?

Mr. Trippier: I am saying—and the Government have said and other Ministers have said—that we want local authorities to be principally enablers.

Mr. Soley: But not entirely?

Mr. Trippier: Principally enablers. It is stretching credulity to breaking point for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to suggest for one moment that the whole of the public housing stock run by local authorities will be transformed and transferred within very short order. I have already touched on that point. There is a balance to be achieved. I have already said in a previous debate that I think that there is an important role for local authorities to deal with the problem of homelessness. The more we can encourage the private sector, principally housing associations, to concentrate on those low-cost housing—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West sneers at that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am not sneering—I am smiling.

Mr. Trippier: You were smiling and sneering. The same question is given to this side of the House by your hon. Friends as to what they would feel about housing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sneering at anything.

Mr. Trippier: Therefore, if there is a role in relation to homelessness for local authorities and housing associations, it is clear that if we are successful with this Bill in promoting private homes for rent through housing associations it will allow local authorities to concentrate on those people who are homeless and to give greater attention to that sector. I shall repeat that point again on Friday.

Mr. Soley: I do not wish to stray out of order, Mr. Speaker. The debate has been about the ability of local authorities and other people to cope with aspects such as homelessness in the past, but we have passed through that debate and this debate has been about certain aspects of security for tenants. The Minister, however, in his remarks has indicated a very different position from that indicated by other Ministers both recently and in the more distant past. I am anxious to get the Government to clarify what they are saying.
I noticed that, on my intervention, the Minister slightly altered his words to say that he did not expect local authorities to get rid of housing in short order—I think that that was his phrase—but may I take it that the Minister recognises and accepts that the aim of the Government as laid down by previous Ministers is to get rid of all provision of council housing when they can? That has been stated in so many words and sometimes very explicitly by the hon. Gentleman's predecessors. He seemed to move away from it just now and then in his closing remarks he seemed to move back again.
May we have the position made clear? Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that at some date in the future, perhaps a long time in the future, the view of the Government is that local authorities will not be providers of housing at all? Or is he saying that there will always be a role for local authorities in providing housing? All the evidence from the Government so far—their actions, their statements on the record here and the written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—is that the Government took the view that local authorities could give it all up sooner or later. The Minister moved away from that and then waffled a bit. I want to know what his position is.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman and I have been Members of the House for long enough to know precisely

the game that he is seeking to play. I could not make it any clearer to him. Perhaps he would care to consider Hansard tomorrow and see what I have said. I have made it absolutely crystal clear. In contrast to that of the Labour party, the Government's policy for the next Parliament is stated clearly in the Conservative manifesto. Therefore, all that is said on housing—I re-read it this morning—could not have been clearer. We are exposing local authorities in their control of housing to competition, and providing the opportunity through this legislation for tenants to give their local council the sack. The hon. Member for Hammersmith does not like that because he and many of his hon. Friends believe that the council estates are their sole preserve. [Interruption.] We have heard it again from his hon. Friends on the Back Bench. I have never heard such arrogance.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to trade arguments with the Minister. We shall have an opportunity to do that when it is appropriate and in order to do so. All that I want to ask at this point is this. If the wording in Hansard suggests that the Minister has in fact stated a position different from that which Ministers previously stated, will it be in order for me to raise the matter tomorrow or at the earliest sitting of the House after the Official Report is made available?

Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment. The hon. Gentleman can check the record and no doubt we can deal with it at the time.

Question put and agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 22

REFERENCE OF EXCESSIVE RENTS TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 16, line 9, leave out "if?.

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 19.

Mr. McCartney: I had intended to wait for the Minister's explanation and then point out how inadequate it was. Little did I know how inadequate it was to be, especially as there was considerable discussion about this point in another place. Indeed, one of the main protagonists in that debate is here today. The amendment deals with the referral of excessive rents to the rent assessment committee—the RAC—which was established to get rid of the rent officer and the local rent committees. Despite the inadequacy of the Minister's comments, it is important to take account of the intention behind the amendment and to explain why the Opposition regard it as insufficient to allay our fears about what will really happen in the market place.
The landlord's power to determine the type of tenancy is especially significant in areas of housing stress. In many respects, the landlord's power to determine whether it is an assured tenancy or an assured shorthold tenancy will to a large extent determine the protection for the tenant or potential tenant. It is significant that, in using that power,


the landlord can negotiate rents higher than those set by the rent assessment committee. I shall return to that in a moment.
As the Minister was not prepared to explain the Government's position, it is incumbent on me to set out what the Government's position was when the matter was debated in another place. In that debate, the Earl of Caithness said:
As noble Lords will by now be well aware, we on this side of the House start from the proposition that the rent for an assured tenancy should be first and foremost a matter for free negotiation and agreement between landlord and the tenant. That, in our view, is a necessary and entirely proper feature of the free market principle which we are seeking to apply to private rented housing.
Thus under the new regime the landlord and tenant will be free to negotiate not only the initial rent for the tenancy but also—if they wish—a contractual procedure for reviewing that rent at subsequent intervals. In cases where they do agree on such a procedure, that procedure will be binding on both parties with no provision for it to be overridden by statute. The primacy of contract is absolutely fundamental to our thinking in this respect."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; vol. 501, c. 399]
The principle behind this is the free market, but in areas of housing stress how can landlord and tenant be free on a balanced basis to negotiate rent levels and terms of tenancy? In reality, that will never be the position. The tenant or potential tenant will always be in a take-it-or-leave-it situation and significantly under pressure when it comes to determining the level of rent.
In terms of legal status, this is a unique attempt to write into legislation in this country the ability of a landlord or other person to make an agreement which removes the contractual rights, legal obligations and right to seek legal redress from the terms of a contract. No such principle exists in any other part of English law. Indeed, employment law is quite the opposite—no employer can force an employee to agree to the removal of his rights. Yet the noble Lord said that, once a tenant had come to an arrangement with a landlord, no matter that it be under pressure, the tenant's ability at a later date to seek redress through the RAC would be ultra vires.
I know of cases where landlords have put considerable pressure on tenants to vary their rent arrangements. In Wigan, that often happens with homes in multi-occupation. Young women living on their own are especially vulnerable. The landlord says that he wants an extra £5 or £7 a week, and if the tenant is not prepared to pay, the landlord will subdivide the tenancy and bring in another person to share that accommodation. I know of one recent case of a young woman having the only room that she rented split into two. The landlord attempted to put in another woman to share that accommodation because the tenant said that she could not afford to pay more than the rent that had originally been agreed.
Tenants are harassed by landlords who want to change the tenancy arrangements. We must therefore seriously consider the amendments and determine whether they are adequate to protect the rights of tenants and ensure that they are in the same bargaining position as the landlord. Unless there is equality of bargaining, there can be no equality or freedom for a tenant when negotiating with a landlord.
Many prospective tenants face the problem of key money. They might telephone the landlord after seeing an

advertisement, be asked to go to see him immediately and then be asked to make an offer on the level of rent that they are prepared to pay and what they are prepared to pay as a deposit and key money. People in desperate circumstances have no choice but to accept whatever the landlord wants. In doing so, they give away their rights to further consideration of the tenancy arrangement. It is important to decide whether the amendment is adequate to deal with that. I do not think that it is.
The Minister of State said in another place:
We believe that the statutory rent-fixing procedure we have designed will ensure adequate protection for tenants in those situations where it is needed. But we are quite determined that the law should not at any stage get in the way of people who are perfectly capable of sorting matters out between themselves.
How is that to be defined in an area of housing stress? It is a throw-away phrase. The noble Lord continued:
Where the rent assessment committee determines a rent, that will be the rent payable under the tenancy unless the landlord and tenant agree on a different figure. The tenant cannot be compelled to pay more than the rent assessment committee's determined rent. I repeat … there is no X factor."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1988; Vol. 501, c. 400.]
In reality, there is an X factor in the market place. It is necessary for people to have roofs over their heads. The landlord makes it clear that either the tenant agrees to a new arrangement or he will not continue the tenancy. With a shorthold assured tenancy, at the end of six months the tenant is on the road with his backpack. He can only hope that the local authority will put him in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
The throw-away phrases during the debate in another place are meaningless in the battle to help tenants secure their rights in the market place, where the landlord has the ability to determine the rent level. Although the noble Lord's statement was inadequate, at least he attempted to answer the questions put by the Opposition. However, he did not say why the Government had failed to do anything about clause 22(3). Why do not the amendments contain a redefinition of the clause, which states:
(3) Where an application is made to a rent assessment committee under subsection (1) above with respect to the rent under an assured shorthold tenancy, the committee shall not make such a determination as is referred to in that subsection unless they consider—
(a) that there is a sufficient number of similar dwelling-houses in the locality let on assured tenancies (whether shorthold or not)"?
Who determines what is sufficient in London, in Wigan, in Manchester, in Halifax, in Cardiff—

Mr. Richard Caborn: Or in Sheffield.

Mr. McCartney: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not mentioning Sheffield.
On the one hand, the Minister appears to be giving the tenant the right of redress, but on the other the phraseology he uses in the clause gives the tenant no right of redress whatever if the RAC says that there are not sufficient houses of a similar tenancy to enable it to determine the tenant's application. The tenant will have to pay up or get on his bike and get out.
Clause 22(3)(b) states:
?(b) that the rent payable under the assured shorthold tenancy in question is significantly higher than the rent which the landlord might reasonably be


expected to be able to obtain under the tenancy, having regard to the level of rents payable under the tenancies referred to in paragraph (a) above.
What is the meaning of "significantly higher"? If we are to believe the Minister of State, once the RAC makes a determination, that is the rent. That means that there is an X factor. What is "significantly higher"—£1, £2, £3; 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent? Is it to be significantly higher than the minimum level of housing benefit set by the local DHSS office?
Who determines that? If a person is homeless in Cardiff or Wigan, he is 100 per cent. homeless. Is it determined in this Bill that in Cardiff a person may be lucky and get the rent assessment committee to assist him, but, unfortunately, in Wigan a person cannot and the answer is to move to Cardiff? That is the sort of double meaning in the legislation.
The legislation gives the illusion that tenants can call their landlords to account and can secure their rights. The ability to negotiate in the market place and to determine both whether the rent level is fair and other tenancy conditions is an illusion. It is an illusion that a tenant can seek redress.

Mr. Redmond: The national mobility scheme, is designed to help people move from one local authority to another. If a person gets on his bike and moves south, obviously becoming part of the homeless sector, he is not allowed to go on to the local authority housing list because he does not have his families, with him. Until he can get his family down south, he cannot go on a waiting list. That happens in authorities which are part of the national mobility scheme, and it is escalating the homeless problem. Can my hon. Friend explain that or will the Minister do so when he replies? Many of my constituents have moved south for a job, which has meant separation from their families with all the hardship, stress and strain that that brings to family life.

9 pm

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Coincidentally, I was the member of the Back Bench Opposition team in Committee who was given the dubious pleasure of moving this amendment, which was new clause 36. I do not want to go over old ground, but it may be helpful to the Minister if I give him the short reply given to me by his predecessor. It may assist him to give me an adequate response.
The gist of my argument was that, in the changeover, the national mobility scheme should remain and that arrangements made between inner and outer London boroughs should remain, irrespective of the terms of the tenancy and whether it was in the public or private sector. It was the only occasion when I paid tribute to the Government, and it was for setting up a mobility scheme some years ago. Despite that, the then Minister, who is not present now, said:
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I understand that the new clause is based on proposals put to the joint committee of the London area mobility scheme, on which the boroughs participating in that committee have not yet reached agreement. So irrespective of its merits or otherwise it is premature, and therefore I resist it.
I am not inclined to accept the principle behind the new clause. It is preferable that participation in mobility schemes should remain voluntary.?—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15 March 1988; c. 1642.]

The market forces apply. That was the short shrift that I got. It is ironic that that was the last time that the Minister spoke from the Dispatch Box, so I suppose that there is some justice in that.
I hope that the Minister can give us some brief indication of the reasoning behind the Government's proposed amendments and why the Government have not included some redefinition of clause 22(3) so that tenants with assured shorthold or assured tenancies can use it for rent levels and other tenancy conditions. Previously, the Minister failed to give a commitment to meet the young homeless in London and elsewhere. I hope that he will not treat this request with the same disdain but that he will get on his hind legs and come to the Dispatch Box. We are awaiting his clarification of the debate in the House of Lords and of this debate.

Mr. Trippier: The speech by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was less than worthy of him. I know him well: he is an hon. Member representing the north-west, like myself. Until I heard his speech, I thought highly of him. I always thought that he was an intelligent man, yet he asked why the then Minister for Housing and Planning did not state the Government's position. He was a member of the Committee for a long time, and he would have been present on Report when the Committee proceedings were made clear. If he was not, I should like to know why.
On Report, an undertaking was given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who was then Minister for Housing and Planning—that he would concede that the proviso served no useful purpose.

Mr. Battle: The then Minister made promises of concessions in Committee that have not materialised.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) should consider what he is saying in his interventions. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning was responding to appeals from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Makerfield has not done his homework. He has not even looked at the record of the Report stage or the proceedings that he attended for several months.

Mr. McCartney: I used to think that, as an hon. Member representing the north-west, the Minister was an honourable gentlemen. The Minister is making a patchwork of personal attacks on myself and other Members——

Mr. Boateng: A farrago.

Mr. McCartney: That is the word I wanted. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) attended a better school than me. I had the benefit of a Scottish education.
The Minister owes the House an explanation of clause 22(3). The then Minister for Housing and Planning said that he would consider the amendment, but if my recollection is correct it did not concern only the specific point made in the House of Lords, which watered down the promise given. Will the Minister please give us an answer?

Mr. Trippier: I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to the specific point that he made about clause 22(1) and 22(3), if he will allow me. The hon. Gentleman knows full well why we conceded this point.
The hon. Member for Makerfield referred to debates in the other place and to the rent regime covering full assured tenancies. We are dealing with shorthold tenancies, under which there is a right to apply at any time, to a rent assessment committee for a rent determination. The rent assessment committee will consider whether the rent payable is above market level, and if it is, it will determine a market rent, which will override the contractual rent. I am sure that I am enlightening the hon. Member for Makerfield—I will give him the benefit of doubt—but this point must have arisen several times in Committee.

Mr. Redmond: It is important to assess the correct level for a rent, but will the Minister consider a method of ensuring that landlords carry out repairs to make a property habitable? When assessing what is fair and reasonable, that must be taken into consideration.

Mr. Trippier: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because his comments have nothing to do with the clause. If we were to go down that road, we would have to discuss—we may have time to do so later: for example. on Friday—whether local authorities, not just the private sector, should be made to keep up to date with the repairs for which they are responsible.
The House will know that subsection (3) will still apply—the hon. Member for Makerfield was right—thus the rent assessment committee will be empowered to make a determination of rent only if it considers, first, that there is a sufficient number of similar properties in the locality let on assured tenancies and, secondly, that the rent payable in the case before it is significantly above the rent levels prevailing under those other tenancies.

Mr. Bradley: As a Member representing a north-west constituency, the Minister should understand the position in Manchester. I shall give a practical example of how people accept shorthold tenancies. The Minister should understand the position well because I explained it in Committee. If he had read Hansard, he would have recognised what happens.
People desperate for accommodation race to get the Manchester Evening News and then race to the telephone to try to get an appointment for accommodation. They race to the accommodation and, if they are lucky, they are
?(6A) If, in proceedings to enforce a liability arising by virtue of subsection (3) above, it appears to the court—
(a) that, prior to the event which gave rise to the liability, the conduct of the former residential occupier or any person living with him in the premises concerned was such that it is reasonable to mitigate the damages for which the landlord in default would otherwise be liable, or
(b) that, before the proceedings were begun, the landlord in default offered to reinstate the former residential occupier in the premises in question and either it was unreasonable of the former residential occupier to refuse that offer or, if he had obtained alternative accommodation before the offer was made, it would have been unreasonable of him to refuse that offer if he had not obtained that accommodation,
the court may reduce the amount of damages which would otherwise be payable to such amount as it thinks appropriate.
Amendment (a) thereto, in line 6, leave out ?is reasonable? and insert
?would be wholly unjust not?.
Amendment (b) thereto, in line 10, after ?offered?, insert ?in writing?.

in a queue of fewer than 20. If they are very lucky, they are at the front of the queue. The landlord offers accommodation on his terms. The applicants cannot determine whether the provisions in the clause about other properties or levels of rent in the area are appropriate and, in desperation, they accept the accommodation. The Minister has said that tenants can go to a rent assessment committee at any stage. If, because of the provisions of the clause, a tenant cannot go to a rent assessment committee to get his rent lowered and cannot afford the rent to which in his desperation he agreed, is evicted by the landlord, will he be considered to be intentionally homeless? I hope that the Minister will reply.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Soley: The Minister does not answer. The problem may be that he is unable to do so. It would help if he could answer the question.

Mr. Trippier: I made that point clear. I shall write to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). I would have to examine his precise example.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Clause 27

DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 18, line 35, leave out "20th November 1987" and insert "9th June 1988"

Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: Nos. 21 and 22.
No. 23, in page 19, line 27, leave out
proceedings are begun to enforce the liability
and insert
 the date on which proceedings to enforce the liability are finally disposed of

Amendment (a) thereto, at end insert
'or within the period of six months beginning on the date on which the proceedings are begun, whichever shall be the earlier'.

Lords amendment No. 24.

Lords amendment No. 25, in page 19, line 34, at end insert—

Amendmetn (c) thereto, in line 11, leave out from ?and? to end of line 15 and insert
?it was unreasonable of the former residential occupier to refuse that offer.'.

Lords amendment No.26.

Lords amendment No. 27, in page 19, line 45, after "for" insert "doing the acts or".

Amendment (a) thereto, in line 1, before 'doing', insert
'with the exception of any grounds for possession under this Act that relate solely to the conduct of the former residential occupier or of any persons living with him in the premises concerned,'.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 33, 247, 248 and 269.

Mr. Trippier: All the amendments are concerned with the new civil right to damages created by clause 27, the new offence under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 which is created by clause 29 and the existing offence. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 take account of the fact that the clause was widened on Report to cover actions by superior landlords in cases where the landlord knew that the tenant might leave as a result of harassment or persistent withdrawal of services. The amendments provide that the clause shall be effective as from the date of those amendments on Report and not retrospective in the sense in which we would deplore it.
Amendment No. 22 clarifies the meaning of the word "calculated," as used to describe the actions of a landlord who may be liable for damages under this clause. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 make similar amendments to the existing criminal offence in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and the new offence in clause 29. Since this widening of the offence covers both acts of commission and the withholding of services, amendments Nos. 26 and 27 widen the defence provided by clause 27(7)(b). Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 similarly widen the defence provided in clause 29.
9.15 pm
Amendment No. 23 provides that a landlord shall not be liable under clause 27(3) if he reinstates the tenant before proceedings are finally disposed of. Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 269 make amendments that have a similar effect to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 23 would make it a requirement that liability under clause 27(3) would arise if the tenant were not reinstated within six months of the date of proceedings starting. The aim of the amendment is to prevent a landlord from dragging out proceedings and thus deterring the tenant from pursuing his case to its conclusion, but there is no need for a time limit in this case. The tenant does not have to accept the landlord's offer to reinstate him. If he accepts an offer before bringing proceedings, he will not get damages under clause 27. If he accepts at any point afterwards, he may not get clause 27 damages but it will still be open to him to bring an action against the landlord for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. The longer the landlord spins out the proceedings, the greater the potential loss to him if he loses. If the tenant wins his case, he could also get interest on the damages. It is the tenant's choice whether to accept the landlord's offer of reinstatement, knowing that if he accepts at a late stage in the proceedings he will lose any prospect of clause 27 damages. He gains nothing by the amendment, and I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
Opposition amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 25 wants the wording of amendment No. 25 to specify that the court shall consider mitigating damages only where it would be wholly unjust not to do so. It was the intention of the noble Lords who drew attention to the inability of the court to mitigate damages that damages should be reduced only in exceptional circumstances. The present

wording of the amendment employs a well-tried concept—that of reasonableness. It is not necessary to ask the court to decide whether something is manifestly unjust.
The whole thrust of clauses 27 to 29 is against harassment. The clauses introduce a new criminal penalty and swingeing civil penalties. The conduct of a tenant will have to be very bad indeed for a court to decide that it is reasonable to mitigate damages that are clearly designed as a penalty for committing an illegal act. These are not normal compensatory damages; they are penal damages. The court will be aware of that, so I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister intend to urge his hon. Friends to ensure that legal aid is available in these cases?

Mr. Trippier: I understand that legal aid is available for all sorts and conditions of men and women.

Mr. Soley: Not so.

Mr. Trippier: Then I shall take advice on that point.
Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 25 would make it a requirement that the offer to reinstate a tenant should be made in writing. In practice, written evidence is not necessarily any more valid or compelling than oral evidence. Both can be equally subject to dispute. Any sensible landlord will make any offer in writing, but a tenant can deny that he ever received it. Copies can be forged. The court would still need to make up its mind whether a bona fide offer had been made, taking account of all the circumstances. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 25 would remove all the references in amendment No. 25 to the reasonableness of the tenant refusing reinstatement if he had obtained alternative accommodation. The Lords amendment enables the court to consider fully the reasonableness of the tenant refusing an offer of reinstatement.
A landlord should not be liable for extremely heavy damages because his tenant happens to find more congenial alternative accommodation. Amendment No. 25 focuses the court's mind on the reasonableness of a theoretically homeless tenant going back to accommodation from which he has been illegally evicted. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 27 seeks to prevent a landlord from claiming that he had reasonable grounds for doing acts or withdrawing services where he had a case for proceeding against the tenant or someone living with him on one of the misconduct grounds.
The amendment is not helpful. The grounds referred to in clause 27(7)(b) are not the statutory grounds for possession in schedule 2, and it is misleading to insert a reference to them as amendment 27(c) does. The subsection as amended enables a landlord to offer a defence that he had reasonable grounds for some act he had committed, which caused the occupier to leave the premises or otherwise interfered with his enjoyment of them. Misconduct by the tenant which provoked him to a particular act might or might not be considered by the courts to be reasonable grounds for that act. The courts will of course always be aware that illegal eviction and the withholding or withdrawing of services can be criminal offences, and that the proper way in which to obtain possession is through the courts, and will have that in mind


in assessing any situation. There is no case for an amendment on the lines of amendment (a), and I am afraid I cannot accept it.

Mr. Boateng: The manner in which the Under-Secretary of State dismissed the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the availability of legal aid to people who complain of harassment by their landlords will have caused a great deal of anxiety among those of us who advise and assist the victims of such harassment. It will cause even more concern to the victims of harassment. I urge the Minister to take immediate advice before the debate on this amendment closes.
The idea that legal aid is readily available in cases such as these—to all manner and classes of person, as the Minister describes them—is absolute nonsense, and I choose my words advisedly. One of the major causes of concern to practitioners of all party political persuasions about the resourcing and administration of the legal aid scheme is precisely that there are groups of people of relatively modest means and people who have little or no income but must rely on savings who are excluded from legal aid because of the civil legal aid regulations. It is not good enough for Conservative Members to say that that is not true, as those of us who spent many hours considering the Legal Aid Bill in Committee expressed our concern over that. There is no room for complacency.

Mr. Trippier: rose——

Mr. Boateng: I see that the Under-Secretary of State is champing at the bit. I am happy to give way, in the hope that he may be able to give some reassurance to those of us who follow these issues carefully.

Mr. Trippier: I have taken the hon. Gentleman's advice and taken legal advice as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of misleading hon. Members by suggesting that changes to legal aid are affected by what we are talking about. I am not sure that what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said is on the record, as it was semi sotto voce, but he was speaking of cases of this kind. My understanding was that he was talking about housing matters and said that legal aid was being withdrawn in housing matters. That is not the case. I am sorry, but there appears to be a dispute between the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will make himself clear.

Mr. Soley: The Government's proposals for legal aid, which they are changing, will make people less eligible for legal aid, and in some cases, people who would have got legal aid will not get it in future.

Mr. Boateng: That is the point. Nothing that the Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith gives any comfort when it comes to the availability of legal aid for the victims of harassment. That is because of the changes in the regulations pursuant to the Legal Aid Act 1988 and changes in the quantum of damages, the likely remedy available to those who allege harassment and their chances of success. Those who apply for legal aid in cases of alleged harassment by landlords do

not stand the sort of chance that they should have of receiving legal advice and the assistance that they so desperately need. It is on these issues that we seek clarification from the Minister. When he reflects upon them in the fullness of time, he may return with a more considered and reassuring response.
I shall reflect generally on the impact of the amendments on the mischief that is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are several ingredients that would feature in an effective law against harassment. Central to these is the likelihood of the landlord who is determined to ride roughshod over the rights of the individual tenant not being in any way facilitated by the processes of the court. The issues that we seek to address in considering the amendments go precisely to that point.
We are anxious to ensure that landlords do not drag out proceedings in a way that is beneficial to their purposes. We are anxious, too, to ensure that the quantum of damages will act as a real deterrent to the landlord who is determined to make a quick buck by inflicting hardship and suffering on the tenant and excluding him or her from the premises. I am talking of the landlord who will be prepared to winkle out a tenant by putting him or her at a disadvantage in terms of occupancy of the premises.
We are concerned to ensure that nothing gives the impression to the landlord that he stands to gain anything by going to court and telling a pack of lies. Experience shows those who have had anything to do with advising professionally, whether they be citizens' advice bureau workers, lawyers, or tenancy relations officers, that when a landlord will benefit from lying, he will lie shamelessly and blatantly to maximise the opportunity for profit. Our concern is that he should be deterred from so doing. If he believes that he can minimise his loss by making allegations about the conduct of the tenant, he will do so. The amendment seeks to ensure that that will not substantially reduce damages.
If he can say that he has given notice and has made an offer to a tenant of reasonable alternative accommodation when he has not, and he is not required to show that he has made that offer in writing, he will do so. That is why we require the individual to make the offer in writing. Then it is there in black and white. It is that sort of amendment that gives the tenant and those who advise him the certainty that he does not simply have rights on paper but remedies in reality. When one talks of harassment in the real world, a right without remedy is meaningless when it comes to seeking to achieve a particular purpose.

Mr. McCartney: Recently in my constituency, a landlord offered tenancies to two young women and said that dogs, other animals or children were not allowed. Subsequently, one of the women became pregnant. The landlord attempted to remove her from the tenancy on the basis that he and his solicitor wrote saying that she had broken the terms of the tenancy by becoming pregnant and so should remove herself forthwith from the premises. That has happened. Given what my hon. Friend has just said about the right of access to legal assessment, will the amendment help such a tenant?

Mr. Boateng: The Opposition's amendment would at least give such an individual a greater sense of security and certainty that there would be an effective remedy; that


there would be an appropriate quantum of damages if the case were made out; and that there would be a greater and more stringent test that the landlord would be obliged to fulfil than is currently the case. That is self-evident on the face of the amendment.
However, one must recognise the market context into which the amendments fall in which there will be every economic incentive for the landlord to get the tenant out, come hell or high water. The great danger of the path down which the Government have sought to go in this area of housing; their reliance on the private market; their obeisance to the mythology that somehow the private sector and resources within it will free accommodation into the housing market, is that even with the safeguards, even as we seek to amend the Bill, there will not be sufficient protection for the individual tenant.
That is why, when this matter was considered in the other place, time and again noble Lords on both sides and on no side sought reassurances from the Minister of State. We say that the reassurances that they gleaned are inadequate and need to be supplemented in the way that we seek tonight.

Mr. Winnick: Is not one of the dangers that landlords with regulated tenants feel that they are being discriminated against? Clearly, if the letting occurred once the Housing Bill becomes an Act, market rents would be the order of the day. Therefore, those landlords and property companies with existing tenants will ask why they should continue to be discriminated against by their tenants not being forced to pay the full whack.
Rachmanism emerged at the time of the 1957 Rent Act and the great danger is that the gangster element in the private sector—I hope that most landlords will not use such methods—will use any means to get a tenant out and not be particularly concerned about a fine, because once a tenant is out he will have achieved his objective.

Mr. Boateng: Of course that is so. Under this legislation, the pressure will be on to get the old tenant out and a new tenant in under the new arrangements. Once that is done, the landlord can charge what he likes and get the tenant out whenever he wants. That is the whole philosophy behind this Bill.
I am anxious that the Minister should respond, amendment by amendment, to our arguments. I begin with Lords amendment No. 23, the purpose of which is to prevent a landlord from dragging out proceedings brought by a tenant under clause 27 with the aim of discouraging a tenant's claim for compensation. In other words, the landlord might otherwise deter a tenant from bringing the matter to trial by dragging out the proceedings for as long as he could. Under clause 27 as drafted, a landlord could avoid liability either by reinstating the tenant before proceedings begin or by observing a court order that the tenant be reinstated.
On Report in the House of Lords, a Government amendment was accepted allowing the landlord to avoid liability by reinstating his tenant at any time prior to the completion of the court case. However, that claim is wide open to abuse by landlords. The Under-Secretary of State and those who advise him must surely appreciate that all too often, a tenant will be unable to secure a court order for reinstatement. One of the most common tricks—it is one that predates Rachman—is that the landlord relets the

property. He will then have every incentive to spin out the proceedings, expecting that the original tenant will give up his case.
Those of us who have been in legal practice—there are practitioners in all parts of the House—know that to be so. We have been party to such attempts and have sought to negate them when they impact adversely on our clients. However, the fact remains that many tenants will give up. The point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, and dismissed so disparagingly by the Minister, was that under new legal aid regulations, the plaintiff in such a case will have to make his legal aid contributions as long as the case continues.
It must be clear even to the Minister that there is a positive advantage to the landlord in spinning out court proceedings, knowing that the longer will be the period in which the tenant must continue making legal aid contributions. Not only will the tenant be without a home, but he or she will be paying for being homeless. It may or may not be the case ultimately that the tenant concerned will get his money back—but he will have to take that risk. That will cause many tenants to give up.

Mr. Soley: My understanding is that, if the landlord makes an offer to reinstate the tenant towards the end of a court case, the proceedings will stop—but that, if afterwards the landlord again takes steps to get rid of the same tenant, that tenant will have to start proceedings all over again.

Mr. Boateng: That is the horror of the situation, and we hope that the Minister will respond. We are making these points not for the sake of doing so, but because we are anxious for clarification. We do not want to believe that such may be the case, but all the evidence from the plain words of the Bill, and from our experience of such cases, is that that is what will happen. In the case that I described, only in the unlikely event that the tenant pursues his case to its conclusion, which could take several years, will the landlord have to decide between reinstating that tenant or paying compensation under clause 27.
Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has said, the last-minute reinstatement of the tenant will not enable the landlord to avoid liability for ordinary compensatory or exemplary damages—unless the tenant gives up that claim as well—the amount of such damages is usually far lower than the gain to the landlord from illegally evicting. That is why clause 27 is in the Bill. Its deterrent effect will be substantially reduced, because any unscrupulous landlord—in fact, any landlord determined to maximise the value of his property—is bound to use the "wait and see" tactic.

Mr. Winnick: >: It is interesting to note that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said in reply to an intervention of mine about the strong possibility of a repeat of Rachmanism that one of the changes from the Rent Act 1957 was that powers were being taken against unscrupulous landlords. Do not the Government anticipate a number of Rachmans, Bergers and Hoogstratens who will use every means possible to try to get out tenants who are at present protected by law? They will have every incentive to do so, because lettings will then be subject to market rents and tenants will have to pay far more than they do now.

Mr. Boateng: During the various stages of consideration of the Bill in another place, the Minister of State was quite candid. He said, as we do, that while the Hoogstratens of this world were not necessarily typical of all landlords—mercifully—the pressure would nevertheless be there. As long as the pressure is there, we have a responsibility, here and in the other place, to get the matter right. We say that the other place did not get it right, and we want to know how we can try to get it right now.
Dragging the case out would not necessarily lead to any increase in the amount of ordinary damages. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member, from a sedentary position—[HON. MEMBERS: ?It is the same one."] It is the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) again. He is accusing us of dragging out this debate. Let me tell him that we will drag it out for as long as it takes to protect those in this city and elsewhere who, day in, day out, live in fear of the sort of landlord whom we have a duty to deter. We will do it if it takes all night. This is not a cause for ironical cheers or hand clapping on the part of the hon. Member for Wirral, South. He does no credit to himself or his party by acting in that way. Many Conservative Members take this matter seriously. I hope that the Minister takes it seriously, because we certainly do, and we intend to persist with it.
It does not seem unreasonable to want the purported purpose of the amendment made into a reality. We do not want the position that we fear would result if the amendment were carried in its current form, in which the landlord would be given a last chance to reconsider his position in the light of the possible salutory effect of court proceedings. Nor do we believe that our requirement would be met by giving the landlord a limited time after court proceedings have begun in which to reinstate the tenant. In practice very few landlords will be able and willing to reinstate the tenant more than six months after proceedings start. That is how it will be in the real world. In order to protect the tenant and create a climate in which responsible landlordism is encouraged and to provide a context in which the Hoogsbratens of this world and others of that kind are discouraged it is necessary that our amendment to Lords amendment No. 23 is accepted.
9.45 pm
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 25 is a short amendment in which we seek simply to leave out the words, "is reasonable" from clause 5 and insert in their place
would be wholly unjust not".
Again, the reason for that has its heart in our wish to make sure that everything possible is done to reduce the opportunity for misconduct on the part of the landlord. As the Bill was originally drafted, the court had no power to reduce compensation for alleged misconduct by the tenant. Under the Bill as amended, the court can reduce the amount of compensation by such an amount as it considers appropriate if the conduct of the tenant or any person living with him makes it reasonable to do so.
In Committee, the Earl of Caithness, speaking on behalf of the Government, rejected amendments that would give the court a wide discretion as to how much compensation to award for illegal eviction and harassment. We agree with him in saying:
We want the courts to award damages which fully compensate the tenant, not to be able to reduce the sum to a point where every landlord can afford to harass, knowing that

the gain he makes from his illegal action will outweigh the penalty imposed by the courts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1988; Vol. 500, c. 94–5.]
The noble Lord Jenkins took the view that full compensation should be awarded save
in wholly exceptional circumstances
or
if the damages as assessed under Clause 28 are manifestly unjust in all the circumstances of the case."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 July 1988; Vol. 500, c. 93.]
On Report, the Minister of State pointed out:
If the discretion given to the court is too wide, we suspect that damages awarded are likely to continue at present levels which often bear relationship to the tenant's loss."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 1420.]
The noble Lord was recognising a factor with which many of us have had to deal in constituency cases. There are the most horrific examples of bad landlords. Even though the tenant has proved his case with the assistance of the tenancy relations officer—we know how hard that that can be and how difficult the evidential burden is—even though the tenant has gone through all the hoops, the amount awarded is almost derisory in terms of its relationship to the loss, hardship, suffering, mental torment and anguish undergone by the tenant.
We find it difficult and unacceptable that the Bill as amended does not achieve what the noble Lord wanted it to achieve, in that the court will still able to exercise a wide discretion, so wide as to render nugatory the aims and objectives of the Minister of State, which we entirely accept.
There is no definition of when it is reasonable to reduce compenstion for misconduct, or by how much it should be reduced. The result of that will be that landlords will be encouraged to raise false allegations of misconduct—a fear that we expressed earlier—in the hope of reducing compensation to a lower level than their gain from the eviction, so weakening the deterrent effect of clause 27 which we are anxious to see strengthened. It would also be open to the court to reduce compensation for trivial or isolated acts of misconduct. The amendment seeks to make it clear that such a reduction should be made only in exceptional circumstances when it would be wholly unfair not to do so.
The power remains with the court. The avenues by which to arrive at a just decision are not open to it. There are precedents in the wording of statutes for saying that this power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances in which it would be wholly unfair not to exercise it. So the emphasis is on deterrence and on protecting the tenant—that is what we are trying to do. That is what all reasonable people should try to do, recognising the pressure that will be on the tenant.
The pressures have already begun to show themselves. My hon. Friends will know from their work and from messages that they receive from advice centres, law centers and local law societies the extent to which, in anticipation of the Bill and the largesse that it will make available to landlords, the winkling has already begun.
Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 25 is designed to ensure that an offer of reinstatement is given in writing: that is only fair. Lords amendment No. 25 gives the court the power to reduce the amount of compensation that the tenant would otherwise receive if it appeared to the court that before the proceedings began the landlord offered to reinstate the tenant and that offer was unreasonably refused.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the fallacies in the Government's thinking is the belief that the tenant and the landlord are equal parties to an agreement and that no outsider need therefore intervene when a deal is negotiated? That is sheer madness in places where there is an acute housing shortage, and where landlords have all the power and prospective tenants have none.
This Bill would merely reinforce landlords' power. We recognise that some of them abide by the law—all the same, it has been tilted in their favour—but unscrupulous landlords will consider themselves mugs if they do not take all possible steps, legal or otherwise, to get tenants out. I see the Minister shaking his head, but why on earth should not unscrupulous landlords do their utmost to get tenants out? That makes all the sense in the world. Once the tenants are out, the landlords can do what they like with the, accommodation—let it at market rents, for instance.
Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposal is the minimum required? If the Government do not accept it they are clearly indifferent to what will happen—my hon. Friend has said that it is already happening. Tenants will be pressurised and harassed.

Mr. Boateng: I entirely accept that, and I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. There is nothing onerous or unreasonable about requiring a landlord who claims that he has offered to reinstate a tenant and who has received an unreasonable refusal to give evidence of that offer in writing. We have yet to hear any reasoned objection to that proposal from the Government. What can be wrong with asking a landlord who says that his offer was unreasonably rejected for written evidence of his offer? One of the ways in which the courts have traditionally attempted to balance the unequal relationship between landlord and tenant has been to require, if not written evidence, at least something that shows the existence of an agreement which can be of value to, and can be taken into account by, the courts.
In such circumstances, what could be more reasonable than saying that the whole agreement need not be in writing but that if a landlord seeks to rely on a tenant's unreasonable refusal of his offer, he must show that that offer was made in writing? Otherwise, landlords will have every reason to maintain falsely that they made an offer, on the offchance that the judge will believe them. That sometimes happens. Some people are accomplished liars and it is not always possible for the courts to detect such persons, although mercifully they often do; one has a certain feel for such matters. It is not unreasonable to make such a requirement and so deter those who seek to reduce compensation and waste the court's time by laying a false trail. The Minister has given no satisfactory explanation as to why the amendment should be rejected.
Amendment No. 25 requires the court to determine whether it was unreasonable of a former residential occupier to refuse the offer. Clause 27(6)(a) gives the court the power to reduce the amount of compensation that the tenant would otherwise receive if it appears that, prior to the proceedings beginning, the landlord has offered to reinstate the tenant and that offer has been unreasonably refused. Under the Bill as drafted, the court cannot take into accounts in deciding whether a refusal of an offer to reinstate is unreasonable, the fact that the tenant may have obtained alternative accommodation, however well settled the tenant may have become.
Suppose that a tenant has been pushed out of his home in horrendous circumstances. Having gone through what can be an extremely traumatic experience, the natural thing for him to do is to put down roots as quickly as he can in his new abode. We say that it is wrong that the courts should not be able to take that into account when determining whether the residential occupier unreasonably refused the offer of reinstatement. It is a simple amendment strengthening the hands of the court in arriving at a just decision.
The Opposition have tabled a bundle of amendments seeking to remedy the fact that the protection given is insufficient for the purposes set out in the Bill. We seek to protect the tenant from the harassment that will result from the Bill and to give the courts the powers and discretion to exercise their function in a just way and allow them to establish the true relationship between landlord and tenant rather than to allow the landlords deliberately to obscure the truth.
We commend the amendments to the House in the context of a Bill that has already had a marked impact on the incidence of harassment in our constituencies. It is not good enough for Ministers in this House or in another place to tell us that we have no need to fear because everything will be all right and that the provisions are the best that can possibly be arrived at. That reassurance will fall on deaf ears in terms of those at the cutting edge of the housing crisis and the current spate of speculation in housing.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill, and the Lords Amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Housing Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Boateng: It is like the scene in "The Devil's Triangle" in which the sea captain throws a lifejacket to a drowning man as the sharks begin to circle and at the same time throws in a bucket or two or offal. Nothing is more certain to attract the speculative sharks infesting the landlord and tenant sea than the smell of blood. This legislation has given them the smell of blood. We seek to substitute a raft for the lifejacket. That is all that we seek to do, but we commend it to the House.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has adequately explained the problem. I shall not delay the House long, as we need to vote on this important matter.
The Government have based the legislation on the belief that they could revive the rented sector. To try to protect themselves from the charge of Rachmanism, which has given them so many problems in the past, they claim to have put in strong safeguards against harassment. We argued throughout the Committee stage that that was not so and we believe that we have proved the point.
Here, I pray in aid one whom I would not normally wish to have on my side—Mr. Hoogstraten, who, in the famous "World in Action" programme, said that he


regarded the Bill as a step in the right direction. When I wrote to the then Minister pointing that out, he replied that he did not think that Mr. Hoogstraten understood the Bill. I believe that Mr. Hoogstraten understands the Bill very well, and I assure the House that his solicitors understand it perfectly. As a result of this legislation, they will be able to get evictions far more easily than ever before. With an assured tenancy, all they have to do is to tell the tenant that they intend to carry out major works. They can then get an eviction just like that—no court case, nothing.
The Minister intervened on my point about legal aid. Some Conservative Members believe that the relationship between landlord and tenant should be a simple legal relationship and that, if either side feels that the other is not acting according to the contract, they should go to law. My point to the Minister was that legal aid would not be available in all such cases, particularly in view of the impending changes, and that in many cases the person would not even get to a solicitor in the first place. The Government do not begin to understand how serious that is, nor how varied are the practices involved.
I cite just one example—a constituent of mine who describes himself as well placed to look after himself, well educated, and so on. In that instance, the absentee landlord deliberately failed to pay the mortgage, thus inciting the mortgage company to foreclosure and eviction. The landlords sent messages to the mortgage company indicating that they knew that the bailiffs would be calling and did not intend to oppose any eviction—all the while concealing the fact that there was a protected tenant in occupation of the premises.
My constituent states:
It was only by luck that I was at home when the mortgage company's agent arrived which allowed me and my solicitor to negotiate a way out of this situation by informing the mortgage company that I was in situ.
That man was paying a rent of about £480 a month, he was represented by a solicitor and he was well able to speak for himself. Despite that, he was advised that it was becoming increasingly common for a landlord deliberately to foreclose on a mortgage and set up an illegal eviction by keeping quiet about the existence of a tenant. Once that luckless tenant is out on the street, the landlord steps forward and pays the mortgage arrears to the mortgage company, thereby re-establishing himself with full control over the premises, having successfully short-circuited all protection given by the law to the tenant.
If the Government were genuinely concerned about dealing with eviction, they would give local authorities, tenancy relations officers, law centres or some other group in society the power to act on behalf of individuals. They have not done so. Indeed, they are taking away those powers and there will be an increase in the number of evictions. The majority of landlords are very good and have good relationships with their tenants, but there is a large minority of bad landlords. The Government have the cheek to criticise some local authorities that may be bad managers, but they never seem to worry about the Hoogstratens and Rachmans of the world. That is a damaging indictment.
It is a fact of life that such people exist and we know that those who will be most at risk are generally the disadvantaged—those least able to speak for themselves or

to put their case to a lawyer. We urge the Government, even at this late stage, to accept what we believe their Lordships intended, which was to tighten the law relating to the Rachmans and Hoogstratens. I believe that eventually the Government will have to go even further, because if they do not, in years to come there will be hideous stories of abuse by individual landlords against tenants who cannot stand up to them in a court of law because they will have neither the resources nor the ability to do so. That is the problem, and that is why we shall vote against the Government.

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question on Lords amendment No. 20.

Mr. Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the Government were intending to reject the amendments. We certainly wish to vote against Lords amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.

Mr. Speaker: I have received no such indication.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 19, line 34, at end insert—
and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above, proceedings to enforce a liability are finally disposed of on the earliest date by which the proceedings (including any proceedings on or in consequence of an appeal) have been determined and any time for appealing or further appealing has expired, except that if any appeal is abandoned, the proceedings shall be taken to be disposed of on the date of the abandonment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 188.

Division No. 481]
[10.8 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Chris


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Body, Sir Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)






Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hannam, John
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heddle, John
Page, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patnick, Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hill, James
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holt, Richard
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Price, Sir David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Irving, Charles
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Janman, Tim
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Hon Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kilfedder, James
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knowles, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stokes, Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maclean, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Madel, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malins, Humfrey
Thurnham, Peter


Mans, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maples, John
Trippier, David


Marland, Paul
Trotter, Neville


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Viggers, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waller, Gary


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ward, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wells, Bowen


Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Whitney, Ray


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Widdecombe, Ann





Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Woodcock, Mike
and Mr. Michael Fallon.


Yeo, Tim





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Alton, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald
Gordon, Mildred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan


Armstrong, Hilary
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Ashdown, Paddy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Grocott, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Heffer, Eric S.


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Beckett, Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bell, Stuart
Holland, Stuart


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Home Robertson, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Geraint


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Doug


Blunkett, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Illsley, Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
John, Brynmor


Buchan, Norman
Johnston, Sir Russell


Buckley, George J.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kirkwood, Archy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lamond, James


Clay, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Clelland, David
Leighton, Ron


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livsey, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
Loyden, Eddie


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McLeish, Henry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Doran, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morley, Elliott


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fearn, Ronald
Mullin, Chris


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Murphy, Paul


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Nellist, Dave


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Parry, Robert


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter L.


Fraser, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fyfe, Maria
Prescott, John






Primarolo, Dawn
Steinberg, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redmond, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Richardson, Jo
Turner, Dennis


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Rogers, Allan
Wall, Pat


Rooker, Jeff
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N.


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr.Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr.Speaker. Can you confirm that the decision on the procedure that you adopted immediately before the last vote was exactly the same as that adopted at 9.51 pm last night before Division No. 478?

Mr.Speaker: I was not present at 9.57 last night. There was some slight confusion, but I think that we got it right in the end.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 31

EXCLUDED TENANCIES AND LICENCES

Lords amendment No.34, in page 23,line 34, after ?if? insert ?(a)?.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr.Ridley.]

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36.

Mr. McCartney: I wish to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 35. It is important to describe the background to rural deprivation. We have concentrated in this debate on inner-city deprivation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Boateng: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of hon. Members are trying to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), but it is very difficult to do so because of the off-noises on the other side of the Bar.

Mr. Speaker: I understand. Will those hon. Members who are not in the House but beyond the Bar kindly leave the Chamber and carry on their conversations elsewhere or come into the Chamber and listen to the debate?

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.
Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to say that so far in this debate we have concentrated on inner-city deprivation, the role of the private sector in the housing market and the lack of resources allocated to

public sector housing. In this amendment, we concentrate on the rural poor and the housing crisis in rural England, Wales and Scotland.
In 1981, the Department of the Environment asked Mr. Brian McLaughlin to prepare a report on rural poverty among low-paid workers, in particular among agricultural workers and those who live in villages and hamlets. The report was so devastating in its criticism of Government policy that it was not published by the Department until 1986. It is known as the deprivation of rural areas report and it highlighted major social problems. It revealed that 25 per cent. of households in rural England live on the poverty line.
The gap between rich and poor in rural areas is widening. It has been especially noticeable since 1985. Nationally, about 11 per cent. of all households have a gross disposable income of at least three times that of those on supplementary benefit. In rural England, the figure is 26 per cent., so a minority—the rural poor—are living among many affluent people. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is interrupting. If he is so knowledgeable about the problems of the rural poor, he should get to his feet and make a contribution to the debate. If not, he should be quiet.
For the last 12 months, Opposition Members have been attempting to improve the Bill to benefit the rural poor, but—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just under 7 per cent. of houses in rural areas are unfit for human habitation. That appalling figure is higher than in most urban areas in Britain. There is a shortage of housing for the poor working classes in rural areas—agricultural workers, retired agricultural workers, the semi-skilled and the unskilled. Many people have been forgotten in the surge to improve rural housing. People indigenous to the rural community have been forgotton in the headlong rush of people moving out from urban areas, who have taken much of the refurbished housing stock at the expense of local people. Add to that reductions in rate support grant to rural district councils and county councils, and we find that a continuing financial and social problem afflicts many rural communities. There have been changes in housing benefit, and the safety net of inadequate public sector housing provision cannot deal with the mounting problems of homelessness.
Despite their inactivity of the past few years, the Government were moved this summer to consider the problem of the rural economy and rural housing. This month, in Rural Housing, David Clark wrote in an article entitled "Countryside homes":
There is a real housing need in villages. Local people simply cannot compete on equal terms with the increasing numbers of more affluent incomers, whether they be commuters, retired or second homers. That comes through strongly in the recent reports from the Association of District Councils, and from the village appraisals and housing surveys produced by parish councils and rural community councils throughout the country, summarised in ACRE's new publication, Affordable homes in the countryside.
That independent assessment tells the Government clearly that the crisis in rural housing is continuing apace.
In response, the Government published on 5 July the White Paper dealing with housing in rural areas, which


relies heavily on the role of the private sector. The Minister will have to explain the consequences of his policies on security of tenure for private sector tenants in rural areas. Paragraph 13 of the Government's response says of the private sector:
The Government is keen to establish a greater choice in the provision of rented housing in rural areas as elsewhere. Housing associations should not become the monopolists of the future. Private sector landlords and developers also have an important role to play. In the past the problem has been that the private sector did not envisage being able to make a sufficient return through the provision of lower cost housing at prices that local people could afford. In the rented sector the Government has launched several important measures to encourage investment. First, the Housing Bill will remove statutory rent control from all new lettings. Landlords will be able to charge market rents while tenants will have long term security under assured tenancies and a minimum of six months security on a short hold tenancy. Second, the Business Expansion Scheme is to be extended for the period up to the end of 1993 to cover companies providing housing let on the new assured tenancies.
That is how the Government envisage the private sector intervening in rural areas.
There is continuing pressure on the market in rural areas, but the ability of agricultural workers, retired agricultural workers and private tenants to affect that market is almost non-existent. It is nearly impossible for them to get a house to rent at a proper rent. It is virtually impossible for the rural poor to enter even the lower end of the house buyers' market. The average price of a house in East Anglia now exceeds £35,000.
Those who operate in the private sector will make substantial profits as they increase rent levels and see their property investments increase in value during a housing crisis. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that those living in private rented accommodation retain their existing rights and will not be subject to eviction by their employers without a court order.
The Government made it clear in the document that they produced in July on the housing crisis in rural areas that they would provide substantial opportunities for farmers and owners of accommodation in farming areas to take advantage of the business expansion scheme and other schemes and to utilise their accommodation by increasing their income from rents and by making sales on the open market. It is important that the Minister gives the House assurances that bear on the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, including the rights within that measure of agricultural workers.
In another place, an amendment was introduced by the Government to extend the range of excluded tenancies and licences to include those whose tenancy or licence was granted otherwise than for money or money's worth. The Earl of Arran said that the aim of the amendment was to allow eviction without a court order of the non-paying guest who lives completely rent-free. The relevant passage can be found in the House of Lords Hansard, at column 406 on 3 November 1988.
The amendment was tabled as a consequence of a commitment that was given to Lord Meston on Report. It catches the non-paying guest who lives in accommodation rent free, but it may exclude from protection from eviction employees who live in tied accommodation rent-free. For example, an employee may have a contract that states that his accommodation will be provided rent-free. He will not be able to point to an agreement that shows that he is getting accommodation in return for money or services. The courts may find that such a person is excluded from

protection, which may result in him being evicted without a court order being made. That is unacceptable, and I do not believe that that was the intention behind the amendment moved in another place. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State will give us that assurance.
A non-paying guest is not in the same position as an agricultural worker or retired agricultural worker. Unscrupulous property owners, absentee farmers or working farmers should not be able to use the amendment that was moved in another place to remove tenants and obtain capital gains at their expense. I hope that we shall receive a clear sign that it is the Government's intention to protect tenants who come within the terms of the 1976 Act.

Mr. Richard Livsey: As a former farm manager who had some responsibility for farm workers' housing including tied cottages, I believe that there is a housing crisis in the countryside. Many tied cottages have become extremely valuable to the owners because there is no real alternative accommodation. Owners want agricultural workers to get out of their houses so that they can put them on to the housing market in rural areas.
When an agricultural worker takes a job, he will normally sign a contract of employment. Provision is often made in a contract for the worker to live in property that is owned by the farmer or landowner. I do not want agricultural workers to have less security of tenure than they enjoy now. In days gone by, many enlightened landlords ensured that the widows of farm workers who had perhaps worked on an estate or large farm for 30 or 40 years or more could remain in their cottages for the rest of their lives.
We are dealing with relatively low-paid workers and, because of the reduction in local authority housing stock as a result of the right-to-buy legislation, particularly in rural areas, there is often no alternative accommodation for farm workers who have lost the tenancies of tied cottages. Will the Secretary of State assure us that farm workers will be given the opportunity to remain within the tenancy until they can find an alternative tenancy in the locality?
In days gone by, when tenants of tied cottages changed their jobs, there was always local authority housing. Such opportunities no longer exist, yet it is important that such a tenant moves on because another farm worker may well need the house. The lack of alternative housing creates a serious situation for the agricultural worker and his family. I hope that the Secretary of State will say what security such tenants will have.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for drawing attention to the importance of rural housing in England. I hope that my hon. Friend, who I know is proud of his English constituency, will not object to me, a Scot representing a Scottish constituency, taking part in this important debate on rural housing in England and Wales. After all, I live close to the English border. Indeed, I can see a number of rural houses in north Northumberland from my house.
I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend refer to the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 which was enacted under the previous Labour Government when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was


the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Happily, he was able to steer that important piece of legislation through Parliament, affording some protection to tenants in tied housing in England and Wales.
The sad irony is that that Labour Government were not able to put similar legislation on the statute book for Scotland. My hon. Friend was able to protect farm workers in England and Wales, but in Scotland farm workers still have to cope with the old oppressive tied housing system, under which it is all too easy for tenants and their families to be evicted.
I am disturbed to hear that the amendment could undermine the protection that has been made available for tenants of tied housing in England and Wales. The 1976 Act was an important development in respect of such employees. It was said in another place that this provision was intended to deal with the problem of non-paying guests in farm cottages. Given the terms of contract to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred, a high proportion of farm workers could be described as non-paying guests in the sense that they do not pay rent—but they give something in lieu of rent, by selling their labour very cheaply.
The agricultural wages boards set wages far too low, and all too many farmers, in England and Wales as well as in Scotland, pay only the basic wage. Their employees are provided with "free" accommodation as a perk, if it may

be so described. It is often not really free, because the employees often pay dearly for what is often very bad accommodation by selling their labour far too cheaply. It is both offensive and misleading to suggest that such tenants are non-paying guests. They pay through the nose, or, more appropriately, by the sweat of their brows. Easing the eviction of tenants and their families in those circumstances would be an intolerable step for the House to sanction.
10.45 pm
A further problem will face the tenants of tied accommodation who work in farming and in other industries, with the introduction in Scotland of the poll tax in April. Hitherto, employers have paid the rates due on tied accommodation on behalf of their employees. In future, there will be a tax on the occupiers rather than on the property. There is no guarantee that tenants will have any more in their wage packets, yet they will suddenly find themselves having to pay the poll tax, while the farmer no longer has to pay any rates. The farmer will end up better off while his employees will be worse off.
I am profoundly disturbed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield said, this provision could represent another retrograde step by the Government and undermine the already weak position of farm workers in rural areas. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to several disturbing aspects of rural poverty and housing pressure in England and Wales, and I hope that the House will give them serious consideration.

Mr. Alan Roberts: Phrases such as "wicked Tory Government" trip off the lips very easily, but we believe that in this instance the Government may be mistaken in introducing legislation based on the concept of someone having a bare licence—for example, for putting up a friend who sleeps on the floor and where no money changes hands. However, this provision inadvertently applies also to tied tenants, and particularly to those in rural areas. We hope that the Government will consider all the points that have been made by my hon. Friends and by others in respect of this proposal and the related Lords amendments.
My hon. Friends have made it clear that they are very concerned about housing problems in rural areas, about tied tenants, and about the homelessness that will be created as a result of this Bill. It will be difficult for those affected to be rehoused—especially since the supply of public sector accommodation has dried up under the right-to-buy provisions. Rural property acquired under that legislation has not been replaced by either the public or private sector, and considerable housing stress and poverty now exists.
That is true not just of inner city constituency such as that which I represent. The local authority area of Sefton in which my constituency is situated embraces many rural as well as city areas, and as a consequence I am approached with problems by people from the rural parts of Sefton which I pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn). I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board our genuine concern and will respond by accepting our proposals.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I congratulate Opposition Members on taking us for a delightful rural ride. We have been over the questions of the community charge, rural poverty and many other aspects of an important problem concerning rural housing, which I found fascinating to listen to. We were given the view from Brecon Beacons, the view of the Cheviot hills from East Lothian, and even the view of rural Sefton, which was a touching picture.
I have to say, however, that these attempts to spin out debate are not relevant to the amendment. The amendment is entirely concerned with whether those who pay no rent—I emphasise the words "no rent"—should be enabled to be got rid of without a court order. The reason for the amendment was correctly described by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) as being not to apply court order powers to non-paying guests. From that it was deduced that there must be many others who paid no rent to whom it would apply. I am delighted to tell hon. Members that tenants under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 will not be affected by the amendment; nor will assured agricultural occupants, under the Bill. The whole agricultural sector is not affected by the amendment. I can therefore give hon. Members the assurances that they seek.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments 34 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 34

NEW PROTECTED TENANCIES AND AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCIES RESTRICTED TO SPECIAL CASES

Lords amendment: No. 37 in page 25, line 50, after "court" insert

considered that, in the circumstances, the grant of an assured tenancy would not afford the required security and, accordingly".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 44 and amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment (a), in line 2, leave out
?would not afford the required security'
and insert
'shall not be treated as affording the required security by reason only of the fact that the tenancy is an assured tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988'.
These amendments relate to clause 34, which is the first clause in chapter V of part I of the Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Lords amendments Nos. 37 and 42 deal with cases in which a landlord is seeking possession of his property on one of the grounds involving the provision of suitable alternative accommodation and the court directs that the tenancy of that alternative accommodation will be a protected or a secure tenancy, as appropriate. The amendments make it clear that in directing that the new tenancy will be a protected or a secure tenancy the court does so because it does not believe that an assured tenancy would offer the required security. The amendments thus clarify the position and guide the court in coming to a decision.
Amendment (a) is presumably based on the argument that the Lords amendments do not go far enough to meet the commitment that was indeed given in another place that the issue would be clarified, but we are entirely satisfied that our amendments meet the stated objective. It is true that they do not replicate the wording of the comparable provision in the Housing and Planning Act 1986. The wording of the 1986 Act was part of a consequential amendment to schedule 15 of the Rent Act. The wording of this Bill is part of a description of the types of tenancies which can be protected tenancies after commencement. In both cases, although the wording is different, the effect is that the court is not automatically to assume that an assured tenancy gives the required protection.
I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), despite the length, depth and breadth of feeling, that the provision as it now stands achieves what is needed, and his amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response. It is true that the concession for which we pressed in Committee received that response in the other place where it was reported in column 1457 of the House of Lords Hansard that the Minister said that the Government "accept the principle" behind the Opposition amendments seeking this change. On Third Reading, the Minister said that he had been advised that the Government amendments would meet our concerns. However I wish to press the Minister to ask him a forthright and open question. Will it still be open to a county court to decide that an assured tenancy per se is equivalent in terms of security of tenure to a Rent Act tenancy, regardless of the contractual terms drawn up


between the tenant and the landlord? It would seem that the court is free to fuse the two, but in fusing the two, tenants' rights will be weakened.
If I may refer to other amendments in this group, it seems that the Government consistently have rejected an appeal for a housing association tenancy. That proposition was lost by a mere 18 votes in the other place. However, there are differences between a secure tenancy and an assured tenancy which should not be blurred at this stage. The blurring of those differences means that some tenants will lose out. The issue particularly affects all new housing associations tenants, including any who may transfer under housing association trusts that are set up by the Government, or any public sector tenancies that are transferred to housing associations, as their security may be diminished when someone moves.
I urge the Minister to spell out that that will not be the case and give the courts clear guidance to ensure that the distinction is not fused. Otherwise, when the Bill is enacted, this section will be tested by case law and inevitably tenants will have to go through the courts to prove the difference between a secure tenancy and an assured tenancy.
I hope that, even at this eleventh hour, the Minister will reconsider the case for allowing a housing association tenancy. Housing associations have made it plain that they do not want to be considered simply as existing in the private sector. They are between the private sector and the public sector, and tenants of registered housing associations currently enjoy security of tenure and the package of rights that has become known as the tenants' charter. Those rights were introduced by this Government in the Housing Act 1980 and further Acts including the Building Act 1984 have received support from housing associations, local authorities and institutes of housing. Housing association tenants need to be clear that their rights will not be diminished, particularly with the prospect of public sector tenants moving to housing associations. Those rights include their right of tenure, their right of exchange, their right to take in lodgers, their right to sublet part of their house, their right to repair and improve their dwelling and their right to information about their tenancies.
I hope that the Government will reconsider the proposition that there should be a distinct and separate housing association tenancy. The amendments should not leave a fudge in the Bill so that tenants are unclear as to their rights and have to resort to the courts for definitions to find out the terms of their tenancies.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The title of clause 35—
Removal of special regimes for tenancies of housing associations etc."—
shows that we are entering important territory. I shall not repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), with which I agreed. When it comes to a vote, I and my hon. Friends will support the Labour party's amendment to the Lords amendment, which raises several matters that the Secretary of State did not deal with.
11 pm
As is clear from the Bill, Government policy has now broken the consensus about the role of housing associations. That has created enormous uncertainty in the

housing association movement. The Secretary of State will know of the long debates we had in Committee about the status of these associations. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) tried at first to claim that they were public sector bodies: they are not. Labour Members—and all other hon. Members—agreed that they were not. [Interruption.] They are not public sector bodies, and the sooner the Labour party realises that, the better.
The then Minister for Housing tried to imply that housing associations were private sector bodies. Eventually, I got him to agree that they were not that, either. Nevertheless, they are being forced into a private sector regime. The housing association movement is unhappy about that. It has always seen its role as providing social housing for people who, according to the evidence of the latest survey, are on incomes just above social security levels and are in need of such housing.
I understand that the Prime Minister is now giving some encouragement to the idea of housing associations being perceived as private sector. I understand that she no longer wants the phrase "social housing" to be used; she wants this sector to be known as "subsidised housing". She is not in favour of housing associations being thought of as providing social housing. She wants it clearly stated that housing associations will be subsidised by housing association grant, and hence by Housing Corporation money—hence by public, taxpayers' money. If all that is true, and the Minister confirms it, it is very worrying and will be the first admission of such a state of affairs by the Government. Will this new terminology be heard after the Bill becomes law?
If what I understand is correct, it is a reflection of the Government's main motive in housing matters: gradually to reduce subsidy, without which the housing association movement cannot prosper.
This is Catch-22: the Secretary of State and his junior Minister have said that they need housing associations for their plans for the demunicipalisation of local government housing to succeed. I concede that more grant was allocated to the Housing Corporation in last week's Autumn Statement. If the corporation receives substantially more money in coming years to cope with the expected massively increased demands that will be placed on it, it should in theory be possible for that money to filter down to fund the growth of housing associations. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome that, as they regard housing associations as having a good record and representing a worthy third component in the provision of rented housing in Britain.
The housing associations are clearly saying that they do not want to be dragged up market. They want to continue to provide for their traditional client groups—mainly people at the bottom of the income scale. They will not be able to expand under the policies that the Government are forcing them to adopt without abandoning many of those groups. They are in a dilemma. They are being told that they must expand, yet at the same time subsidy is being reduced and private sector money is being encouraged to come in. I do not object to private sector involvement in itself, but without sufficient subsidy—in London that means 75 or 80 per cent., if not 100 per cent.—most housing associations will not expand. They will certainly not be able to expand to pick up the increasing number of people on low incomes who will need rented housing and who will not find it in the private sector. In theory, those


on housing benefit should be able to find it, because housing benefit should cover the rents, but we know from previous debates that that will not happen in practice.
If the housing association movement does not get the subsidy that it needs, it will not expand its operations but will prefer to continue on its present scale, housing the same people as it houses now. It will not fulfil the role that the Government have repeatedly said they wish it to fulfil.
After a year of debate, the Government still have not accepted the legitimate and reasonable wishes of the housing association movement or heeded the experienced voices of those in that movement. If they continue to fail to heed them—I say this more in sorrow than in anger—plans to expand the housing association movement may fail.
Those who have worked in the housing association movement know what they are talking about. They know which client group they want to serve and the criteria that have to be met if they are to do so. By their intransigence the Government will ensure that their policies for what most of us are not unhappy to call "social housing" will fail. I believe that there should be social housing; I am also happy for it to be called partnership housing. We need housing, provided in part with public funds, to meet the need of a particular client group. It would alleviate the housing associations' fears to some extent and reassure their tenants and prospective tenants if the Secretary of State—at the eleventh hour both literally and constitutionally—would give them greater encouragement.
I propose to press the Secretary of State once more on the question of what will constitute an affordable rent. On the basis of public assurances given by the Government so far, there seems to be absolutely no reason why they should not accept that affordable rents should be built into the regime that they are planning. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have come up with wording that suggests that they will impose on the Housing Corporation a duty to impose on housing associations a rent regime limiting rents in that sector to amounts that people in reasonable and low-paid employment can manage.
We need a statement from the Secretary of State to the effect that there will be sensible and affordable rents, as was orginally suggested in the consultation paper. In Committee, on Report, in the tenants' guarantee, in the Housing Corporation document about criteria for tenants' choice landlords and in the other place it has been implied that rents will be affordable. That was never defined and a year later we still do not know what it means.
Will the Secretary of State define, at today's prices, what an affordable rent for those on low pay would be? Would it be 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the average manual wage in a given region? Without a figure, the phraseology is almost meaningless. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us a definition today. If not, will he give an undertaking that the concept of affordable rents will be defined in good time for the Housing Corporation and housing associations to understand what it means? The Housing Corporation also needs to know so that it can calculate the amount of income coming in and advise associations accordingly.
As the Secretary of State knows, the housing associations have made it clear that they want explicit provisions as to what rents are affordable, but the Government have so far resisted that request. At this late stage, we ask the Government to answer the question put

to them by reputable housing professionals who know the low incomes of their clientele, the cause that the associations were set up to serve, and the massive pressure for affordable housing that there will be in the weeks and months ahead. Can we not have a guarantee on the face of the legislation that substance will be given to oral assurances about what exactly an affordable rent is?
The housing association movement began its consideration of the Government's proposals both troubled and anxious. The Government made various promises about tenants' guarantees and then resiled from them, so the guarantees are now less substantial than the housing associations were led to believe. The shape of the Bill has changed before their—and our—very eyes. I make this request to the Secretary of State because I am prepared to accept that he wants an expansion of housing associations and that that would be a good thing for the country. Now is the time to give the housing associations the reassurance that they seek and, if he can, to state that it is untrue that the Prime Minister and the Government wish to see an end to the defined concept of social housing. Can he assure us that the Government are willing to continue to use the term and to give people in such housing the same respect and status as anyone else, and that they do not intend to start defining housing associations as part of the private sector and social housing as subsidised housing and thus seek to go down the slippery slope which eventually leads to less and less grant, higher and higher rents and less and less ability to meet real housing need?

Mr. Winnick: I support the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who, I believe, described himself earlier as a Liberal.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There are two more here now.

Mr. Winnick: We always admire those who do not seek to hide their true political feelings and affiliations. One of the hon. Gentleman's two hon. Friends who also describe themselves as Liberals—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—was an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of his party. I am sorry about that, but I was not given a vote.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the tenants.

Mr. Winnick: Yes, we shall be coming to that in due course, but on future occasions we shall certainly know the party colours and affiliations of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
I support what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said not just because he told us earlier that he was a Liberal but because of the need for affordable rents to which he referred in his speech.
One danger is that, because of the Government's allocation of grant, housing associations will have to charge rents that are virtually market rents—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to talk, they should go to the Tea Room. Alternatively, they should be silent and take part in the debate later. This is a crucial issue. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I find it disquieting that Conservative Members are not taking part in the debate. It is almost as though they were in Committee. Do they not have constituents who are concerned about these matters? Three Conservative Members are still engaged in private conversation. One is the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). He is


not paying any attention to the debate or to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is engaged in some intrigue within the Tory party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Conversations are taking place in different parts of the Chamber. We must get back to the amendment.

Mr. Winnick: I was pleased to hear you say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I should be only too pleased to return to the amendment. Conservative Members are—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us are interested in the view of the Conservative party on these matters. If there is any chance that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is discussing them and the relevant amendment, we should be most interested to hear what he has to say. If any of his colleagues choose to enlighten the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us first hear what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has to say.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me when we were actually discussing the amendment? It has not been mentioned yet.

Mr. Winnick: I do not think that such reflections on the Chair really help our proceedings. It is rather unfortunate that the Secretary of State wants to make some cheap debating points. We are inviting contributions from Conservative Members on the issues before us.
What the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said is of crucial importance because the housing associations take responsibility for housing those in need. A survey in 1988 by the National Federation of Housing Associations showed that the four most common reasons for rehousing were overcrowding, ill health, leaving temporary accommodation and poor housing conditions. Those accounted for 46 per cent. of all the reasons for rehousing.
If the housing associations are fulfilling a role—to a large extent because the local authorities cannot carry out their usual traditional housing responsibilities—we must be concerned, and I hope that it concerns the Secretary of State, if the changes in the grant allocation mean that housing associations will have to charge rents that people in need, those whom they are trying to help, cannot pay.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments are mainly technical, dealing with various matters arising from the transition of an existing Rent Act regime to the new assured tenancy regime to be established under the Bill. Can you explain to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how a wide-ranging debate on housing associations can be relevant to the amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must admit that this is all rather confusing. I have been trying hard to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the amendments and it is difficult to do so. I hope that he and other hon. Members will now address their remarks to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Soley: Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that nobody wants hon. Members to

stray out of order, but the Secretary of State is wholly wrong in saying that these are mainly technical amendments. They are not. They are deep and wide ranging, and have implications for rent levels. I would think that so long as the debate is about that it will be in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I found it hard to relate the earlier remarks to these amendments and I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North will now relate his remarks directly to them.

Mr. Winnick: Obviously, I abide by whatever you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would have thought that security matters relate to the level of rent, as do housing associations which must decide on rent in the light of their grant allocation. As my remarks are in line with those of previous speakers, I trust that they are in order. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Ministers to make those sounds. If they want to sleep they can go elsewhere.
I listed the group of people that housing associations have been assisting. We must consider the level of rents and how it will be possible for those in need to be assisted in the way that those in need are being helped by housing associations now. It is extremely important that the security given to a tenant is the same as that provided by the Rent Act 1977. That is not the case at present. Any form of insecurity causes anxiety.
We are trying first and foremost to establish the level of security and the way that courts will decide. I hope that when the Minister replies he will respond to our points about housing associations because they raise important matters for those who will seek to be rehoused by housing associations. As local authorities are no longer able to assist people because no building is taking place, it is all the more reason why some protection should be given to those who cannot afford market rents.
The crux of the argument which seems to puzzle Conservative Members is simply: what will the Government do for those who cannot afford a mortgage or market rents, who do not stand a chance of being rehoused by a local authority and who are likely no longer to be assisted by a housing association because of the level of rents which they will be forced to charge? Surely those are legitimate points which must concern us, even if, unfortunately, they do not concern Conservative Members. I am sure that I am supported in that by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is to be congratulated. He has driven the Secretary of State from the Chamber. The fox has gone to ground, leaving his rather bedraggled pup to mind the lair, and by the time we have finished with him tonight, he will look even more bedraggled.

Mr. Patnick: The hon. Gentleman should get the zoological species correct. Foxes have cubs, not pups.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) forgets that we are dealing with the Housing Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) at least got the lair right.

Mr. Boateng: Whether it be cub or pup, we are dealing with an animal that has four legs and is looking increasingly bedraggled and uncertain without the intrusive presence of the Secretary of State. At 11.25 pm


we should not be debating the species to which the Under-Secretary belongs. He is all too revealing in the shape that he takes before us, and we do not want to enter into a semantic argument about whether he is a cub or a pup. He is at bay, which is all that matters.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) would not wish to mislead anyone reading the record of this debate. He may have conveyed the impression that the Secretary of State, having graced our proceedings throughout the night, had just left the Chamber. He looked in for only a comparatively short time.

Mr. Boateng: My right hon. and learned Friend is, once again, right. The record should show the extent of the Secretary of State's appearances in the debate. The record should show that Ministers, recumbent on the Front Bench, have from time to time been heard to mutter and mumble comments about relevance and sticking to the amendment. Among those Ministers, a particularly spirited response—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may mumble something about sticking to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for a little over three minutes, but has not referred to the amendment. I hope that he will do so quickly.

Mr. Boateng: I am suitably chastened. I was trying to set the context of the amendment.
The drafting of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 44 is simple enough. We wish to insert the word "secure." What could be less threatening? Amendment No. 44 has received a warm welcome from Labour Members. It adds to the circumstances in which a housing association can grant a secure tenancy with a fair rent. That is a good in itself, because the Bill seeks destructively to undermine the true role of housing associations in the provision of houses for those who need them. Amendment (a) seeks to redress the balance.
The former Minister for Housing and Planning used to visit hon. Members' constituencies—

Mr. Tony Banks: Whipping up apathy.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister seldom managed to convince his audiences, but he suggested to the housing association movement that when the Bill was passed it would have a new role to play. That is why the amendment is so important. For a moment, we feared that it might be possible for him to separate the housing association movement from the local authorities and communities which they were set up to serve. That was the purpose. The Minister was not out whipping up apathy for the fun of it or simply seeking to establish a reputation as an industrious Minister of State. If his intention was to retain that position, he failed because he did not survive the Bill, just as a number of us predicted. Perhaps the current incumbent is not much longer for the portfolio either, but we will not speculate. We shall return to the amendment and see why it is so important.
11.30 pm
The amendment preserves the traditional and historic role of the housing association movement. It should not be used to undermine local authorities or the public provision of housing, secured through the ratepayers and taxpayers. It should complement the local authorities. That was

recognised by the housing association movement. That is why the Minister failed in his primary objective to disengage the housing association movement from the local authorities and communities which they serve.
To make sure that that does not happen, even after the passage of the Bill, we have proposed the amendment, which provides that, where a housing association purchases a property containing a tenant with a statutory or protected tenancy, the association can grant that tenant a secure tenancy with a fair rent. The amendment seeks to extend this so that, where an association takes over a property with a secure tenant, it will also be able to grant that tenant a secure tenancy at a fair rent. That is a modest enough proposal, but one to which Conservative Members may be resistant because it contains a particularly unpalatable truth for them. It underpins the need to recognise the special roles of housing associations as bodies to meet special needs.
A number of groups will benefit from the amendment, including those who are disabled and require properties that are specially adapted and those who at a particular stage in their lives, whether through old age or youth, require special housing provision in terms of the management of their household or the kind of units available. Our vision is not of a society in which a person is fixed into one form of occupancy. One sees from one's constituency cases that old people find it particularly hard to maintain homes which are sometimes too big for them.

Mrs. Mahon: I hope that I can flush the Minister out of his hole and get him to reply to a question which I have tabled and which I asked him earlier tonight. Why have the Government seen fit to sabotage the excellent scheme proposed by the Stoneham housing association for deprived young people? That housing association and my local authority would have provided 30 places in what is now an empty tower block. They would have helped to restore and bring that tower block back into use for housing. Because of the inadequacies of housing grants, we have not been able to repair that tower block. It is sad that that group of clients has been left virtually homeless.

Mr. Boateng: Halifax is remarkable, not only by reference to the quality of its representation in the House but by reference to its capacity to produce an example for every aspect of the Bill. Whenever there is an amendment, there is always an example readily to hand from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). It must be a truly remarkable place in which to live, with its diverse problems and the breadth of its need for housing.
I see that Brer Fox has returned to the lair. If he will pay attention for one moment, he will hear that what we are particularly concerned about in this amendment is that the sort of scheme that has been referred to in Halifax should be able to grow and develop. Our vision of housing provision is that people should be able to move into and out of appropriate housing throughout their lives. When they are young and making the transition from home into the private or public rented sector or even into owner-occupancy, guidance should be provided for them. As they grow too—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again moving away from the amendment.

Mr. Boateng: Then I shall return to it. There is a stage in a person's life when Lords amendment No. 44 becomes


particularly relevant on account of the change in the nature of the tenancy because of the age of the tenant, his financial position or his health and general family circumstances. Such people may wish to move into housing association property. Lords amendment No. 44 should therefore be written into the Bill so that housing associations are able to make the necessary provisions for them. Without the amendment, housing associations will not be on hand and will be unable to meet their special needs.
We know that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have received an overwhelming number of representations from the National Federation of Housing Associations. That has been a word of warning to them. The federation has asked the Government to enable the movement to grow in order to take advantage of the opportunities that the Government say they seek to provide by means of the Housing Corporation. Without the amendment, it will be unable to take advantage of those opportunities, which we believe ought to be provided. We ask the Government truly to liberate the housing association movement and allow it to play its role alongside local authorities in providing for the needs of our people.

Mr. Tony Banks: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been caught short on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 37. One lives and learns. I shall not be caught out on Lords amendment No. 76 and amendment (a) to it, but I shall give the Secretary of State his due on that one.
The Secretary of State said that these are technical amendments. Some of them appear to be very technical and we need to ask questions about them. Lords amendment No. 40 attempts to ensure that protected shorthold tenants who have been granted tenancies before the Bill becomes law under the current arrangements for creating protected shorthold tenancies do not become assured tenancies or protected tenancies by virtue of the arrangements in this part of the Bill. That includes cases where the landlord does not serve the correct notices for creating a new style of assured shorthold tenancy.
It is clear from these so-called technical amendments that the Government are prepared to create the most absurdly complicated sections and subsections to preserve the insecurity of protected shorthold tenancies.
We shall not oppose amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40, but we believe that they demonstrate how much the Government are the party of the landlord and how they are prepared to frame legislation to ensure that landlords have a free hand. That has always been the philosophy behind the Bill. Although the Secretary of State may say that they are merely technical amendments, the philosophy behind them and the fact that the legislation becomes more complicated reveal the attitude and approach of the Government of the landlord.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 deal with housing association tenancies and with fairly complicated hypothetical problems that may occur at some time if a secure tenant becomes a housing association tenant under the provisions of part IV. A council tenant who is at present secure under the provisions of the Housing Act

1985 may be bought up by a housing association under the provisions of the pick-a-landlord proposals. At that point, the tenant would become an assured tenant.
But one must hesitate at that point. The Government are so anxious to preserve the right to buy that should the tenant exercise the right to buy his home at a discount and discover subsequently that his house was built to a defective design—perhaps the Bison system—the housing association can buy back the flat so that the owner-occupier does not have the headache of a useless asset on his hands. Under these provisions, that tenant then becomes a secure tenant—unlike his neighbours, who were not so foolish as to exercise the right to buy and who are merely assured tenants.
The dice are always loaded, certainly with regard to the right to buy. The Government may say that they are just technical amendments, but when one understands the thought that went into them they reveal the hand of the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 are absurd.
But perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me that my timing is wrong. Perhaps it is only when a tenant has exercised the right to buy before the estate or block is taken over by the new landlord that he can become a secure tenant when he sells his property back to his landlord. I should be most grateful if the Minister would answer that question and explain the amendments so that I may know whether my interpretation is correct. If it is wrong, the Secretary of State has a great body of experts round him who can tell us, through him, exactly what the amendments mean.
To get a better understanding of these technical amendments, I thought that the best thing would be to turn to the debate in the other place. But when I read the Lords Hansard I saw no evidence that the Earl of Caithness understood the amendment. It was moved formally and there was no debate. So we still do not know precisely what the amendments are about and must struggle to interpret the amendments ourselves.
Lords amendment No. 44 relates to clause 35, which falls in chapter V of part I. Chapter V is a complicated but crucial part of the Bill. It is the mechanism by which the Government intend to destroy current arrangements for the protection of tenants, so that the new regimes of the market place—the assured tenancy and the assured shorthold tenancy—can take over.
Chapter V is entitled:
Phasing out of Rents Acts and other Transitional Provisions.
Clause 35 states that a tenancy cannot be a housing association tenancy unless it falls into one of several exceptions, which include where the tenancy was granted as part of a contract formed before the Act became law, where it is granted to the same person who before the grant was already a protected tenant of substantially the same accommodation, and where the new tenancy arises from the tenant having to move as a result of a court order which states that the new tenancy is equivalent to "suitable alternative accommodation".
11.45 pm
Lords amendment No. 44 sets out another exception to the number of new housing association secure tenancies that can be granted. When a housing association buys a property in the private sector which already has protected


tenants—the so-called sitting tenants—in it, the tenants are permitted to become secure tenants under the Housing Act 1985 rather than new style assured tenants.
I am obviously in favour of the amendment. It seems eminently sensible and fair. We all know that housing associations do a great deal of good when they intervene in the wholly inadequate private sector, buy privately rented property, improve it, convert it and let it to people in need of low-cost rented housing. The Government want to make all publicly provided accommodation housing association accommodation, and to take it all away from local authorities. We heard some interesting exchanges on that subject between my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the Under-Secretary of State.
We do not want to hinder housing associations that want to take up property in the private sector and improve it.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend know that the survey conducted by the National Federation of Housing Associations, which I quoted earlier, shows that the average net weekly household income of people who were given accommodation by housing associations was £77·50, compared with average national earnings of £224? The average net weekly income for households with nobody in work is £58·99 and the average for households with one person in work is £115. Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures illustrate the type of problem we are dealing with? Perhaps the Secretary of State does not realise its seriousness. People now being assisted by housing associations are in the main, though not exclusively, on small incomes. To the extent that housing associations will be forced to charge something near the market rent, the people I have described cannot be helped.

Mr. Banks: I agree. One of the insidious things about the Bill is the way in which the role of housing associations is being changed. It is clear from the submissions that the Government received from housing associations that the associations do not like that.
There are times when I do not understand Conservative Members. Either they have no knowledge of what it is like in the bottom league or they have not attempted to find out or—worse—they know but do not care. We all have decent homes. None of us can be compared with the people who will be caught out by the Bill. All Conservative Members are fairly comfortable, and some are living in the lap of luxury. Good luck to them, I suppose.

Mr. Winnick: I would not go as far as that.

Mr. Banks: I am trying to be as generous as I can. Conservative Members do not have to experience housing difficulties and they do not understand what they are all about. When they move their amendments without being aware of the impact that they will have on those who are in the poorest sections of our society, it is not suprising that we become angry and embittered towards the Government. To be frank, we do not believe a word that they say. I wish that they would make more attempts directly to learn for themselves how badly off some people are in the private sector and in many parts of the public sector.
When considering Lords amendment No. 44, we must remember that housing associations are seeking to buy and improve privately owned property so that they can provide

some decent housing. As always, I turned to Newham to ascertain the state of houses in the privately rented sector, and I can report that it is appalling. The 1985 house condition survey on properties in Newham has demonstrated that the fabric of our private sector housing stock is becoming unfit at a faster rate than it is being repaired.
Most of the 45,000 dwellings that make up the private sector stock in Newham are pre-1919 properties. They are coming to the end of their useful life unless major renovation is carried out in the near future. It seems that 57 per cent. of private sector dwellings in the borough are unsatisfactory, which equates to 26,000 dwellings. The results of the survey told us that 83 per cent. of private rented dwellings were unsatisfactory and that 52 per cent. of owner-occupied dwellings were unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory means unfit and/or lacking basic amenities and/or in serious disrepair. No Member of this place has to live in such housing.
Disrepair is becoming worse in Newham. In 1981, a total of 37 per cent. of private rented dwellings were unfit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the amendment.

Mr. Banks: I am directing myself to Lords amendment No. 44 and the role of housing associations within the terms of the amendment. The associations buy inadequate private sector property, or inadequate privately rented property, and improve it. That is within the terms of the amendment. I must accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am trying only to demonstrate the enormity of the associations' task under the amendment and of their role generally. They have a major problem to deal with in Newham.
I hope that the Government will accept Lords amendment No. 44. If they fail to do so, the role of the housing associations could be undermined.
It is fairly common practice for associations to buy tenanted properties, especially in a period of rising property prices which lead to increasing difficulties for associations that wish to buy properties and improve them within the cost constraints set by the Housing Corporation. Tenanted properties sell at cheaper prices. Indeed, some would sell for about half their vacant possession value. This means that they are attractive to property speculators. They buy them, winkle out the tenants and sell them with vacant possession.
It is important that housing associations should be encouraged to buy in this market. The properties can be bought at reasonable prices and converted to achieve a housing gain for the housing association movement. For example, a house in multiple occupation with one sitting tenant can be converted into three flats, which means that there is a housing gain. Housing that is sold with sitting tenants is usually run down, badly managed, with inadequate repairs and fire precautions. The tenants, as I know from my own experience, are often old and vulnerable people who have been unable, for one reason or another, to get a foothold in the owner-occupation market. It requires the sensitive handling of the housing association to achieve that repair and improvement without too much distress or disruption to the vulnerable tenant.
If Lords amendment No. 44 is accepted, the home of a private protected tenant which is bought by a housing association can become a secure tenancy. If it is not accepted, that tenancy will become an assured tenancy under the new rules set out in part I.
One might ask what is the difference between a secure tenancy, a protected tenancy and an assured tenancy. It is a difficult question. Many people in my borough are asking those questions all the time. I wonder how many Members of this House or the other place know.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is this debate relevant to properties owned by the London and Quadrant housing association in areas of my hon. Friend's constituency such as Disraeli road, where I happen to know properties are being developed and put on the market? Is it important to people living in such property?

Mr. Banks: It certainly is. I think that my hon. Friend knows that that housing association is located in my constituency. My hon. Friend should perhaps admit a certain interest. However, I shall pass over that. It is not the sort of interest that would infringe his right to speak in this place. I think that my hon. Friends know what that interest is and we must congratulate him on having such an intelligent member of his family working for that housing association and living in that area.
Let me return to the differences between a secure tenancy, a protected tenancy and an assured tenancy. They always sound alike. Why should not a tenant in the situation that I described become an assured tenant rather than a secure tenant?

Mr. Winnick: Could it be that the lack of interventions from Conservative Members—not one Conservative Member has spoken since the proceedings began—is related to the fact that quite a number of them have substantial property interests and simply do not want to reveal them because many of them will gain as a result of the Bill becoming law?

Mr. Banks: That may well be the case. It would be useful if Conservative Members could join in the debate. It is supposed to be a debate. It is not, of course, and nor was it in Committee. That is one reason why I desperately want to have this place televised. I want people to see exactly what goes on in this place. I know that Conservative Members are just sitting around waiting for the next Division, hoping that it will be sooner rather than later.

Mr. Faulds: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend into any irrelevance, but is it not likely that if we were to have the disastrous intrusion of the cameras into this place, the political affiliations of most of the people who own the television companies involved in that would, like the popular press, try to defend all the interests of Conservative Members? The television companies will take the greatest trouble—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. None of that has anything to do with Lords amendment No. 44. Can we get back to secure or assured tenancies?

Mr. Banks: I accept immediately what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always prepared to give way to may

hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). It is so good to have him here at a time other than Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Battle: It may be that we do not see the televising of the House of Commons in terms of censorship, but I am certain that many housing associations have lobbied Conservative Members on this issue and they will have to answer to their constituents for not being able to assure them that the housing associations will not be prejudiced by the Bill.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes another good point, for, in speaking to Lords amendment No. 44, one realises what is happening in this place and with this Bill, against the interests of those who are desperately in search of housing.
Many of these amendments are so complicated and confusing that it is hardly surprising that many outside the House find it difficult to establish their rights. One begins to get cynical, and I resist that as much as I can, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know. None the less, one reaches a point where such obfuscation appears to be deliberate, to ensure that people desperately in need of housing can never find out what are their real rights.

12 midnight

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend refers to the differences between an assured and a secure tenancy, and comments that perhaps Conservative Members are voting for this legislation because they have property and wish to see a change in the nature of tenancies in order to exploit their own tenants more. Will my hon. Friend comment on the obligation that is placed on all right hon. and hon. Members, under a requirement of "Erskine May", not to vote for any legislation that will give them a financial advantage? It may be that we shall see a diminution in the numbers voting against the amendment.

Mr. Banks: The passage of time will lead to a diminution in the number of Conservative Members voting on the amendment. Nevertheless, I know that I can count on my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to point out to any recalcitrant Conservative Members what are their obligations and responsibilities, for I know that he is a keen student of the pecuniary interest register. He probably has the mark of every Conservative Member currently sitting on the Government Benches.
I return to the differences between protected, secure and assured tenancies. They all sound as though they are good things, but it is here that the Bill is deceitful. There are many similarities between a protected and a secure tenancy. It will not do an individual any harm changing from a protected to a secure tenancy, but there is a huge difference between a protected or secure tenancy and an assured tenancy, but that is what the Government intended all the way along.
The rents of protected tenants are set by the rent officer at fair levels that disregard the scarcity of accommodation. Under the present housing association arrangements, the same regime of the rent officer setting fair rents applies. However, if there is a change to an assured tenancy, the rent will be fixed by the rent assessment committee at market levels.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that the fair rent regime, which is being undermined by Lords amendment No. 44, does not provide that much protection? If a tenant improves a property owned by his landlord, the fair rent officer must take any such improvement into account when fixing the rent.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see how any of those points can be raised under the amendments now before the House.

Mr. Banks: I was about to say that I disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot disagree, I do not disagree, and I never shall disagree with you—though on this occasion I believe that I do.
In the case of a protected tenant, there are a number of grounds on which a landlord can obtain possession. They are broadly similar to those shown in the Housing Act 1985 as grounds for possession against a secure tenant. One important element is that if a landlord wishes to seek possession on the grounds of a fault, where it is claimed by the landlord that the tenant is at fault in some way—for example, in not paying the rent—such grounds are discretionary and the landlord must show not only that the tenant is at fault but that it is reasonable that the court should make a possession order.
Should the tenancy be changed to an assured tenancy, however, the position will be different. For the first time, under the Bill, one of the so-called "fault" grounds becomes a mandatory ground for possession. If a tenant is three months in arrears with his or her rent—even if the arrears are not the tenants's fault—the court has no choice but to make an order for possession. Being an assured rather than a secure tenant would make a considerable difference to the person concerned.
As a protected tenant, a tenant in the private sector can currently pass on his or her tenancy twice, first to a spouse and then to a member of his or her family. Of course, the Government are proposing to change the rules, even for existing tenants, so that, although spouses can inherit a tenancy, members of the family can only do so—and it will be an assured tenancy—if they have lived in the accommodation for at least two years at the time of the tenant's death.
The important issue is that succession rights can be passed on to members of the family as well as to the spouse. If a private tenant's home is then bought by a housing association—which is the subject of the Lords amendment—that tenant will become secure. Secure tenants have similar, although not identical, rights in regard to succession. They can pass on their tenancy only once, although it can be to a spouse or, if there is no spouse, to another member of the family who has been living in the accommodation for at least 12 months at the time of succession.
Should the tenancy become an assured tenancy at the time of purchase, rather than a secure tenancy as suggested by the Lords amendment, there can be only one succession on death—and that to the spouse only. That is particularly hard on carers who move in to look after an elderly relative. Once the tenant dies, the carer, who may have devoted a good part of his or her life and attention to that relative, finds that as a reward for his labours at the same time as having to face up to a bereavement he must face the prospect of losing his home.

Mrs. Mahon: The carer will often have also lost out on any kind of career, finding himself years later on a much reduced income. That is an added anxiety, which is making people stop to think, "Shall I do this, or do what I least want to do and throw an elderly or sick person on to the state?"

Mr. Banks: That is an important point. The Government have talked about people being turned out of long-stay hospital beds and being looked after in the community. It sounds fine, but the Bill could penalise their carers, and that strikes me as disgraceful.
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary is fully aware of that implication. We explained it in some detail in Committee, but of course he was not there at the time. He has a very tenuous grip on his present job. This is a bit of a graveyard for aspiring Conservative politicians. I do not wish the Minister any ill, because it is not in my heart to wish any Conservative Members ill. That is why I still hope that somewhere within their breasts beat hearts that may still be turned by our pleas. The Secretary of State, in particular, looks at me with that stony, skull-like look that almost belies the thought that he even has a heart. But I do not give up hope even for him at this stage.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He referred to graveyards. Another graveyard with which we have become familiar during the past 12 months is the graveyard where the Government put reports when they do not know what to do with them. The Griffiths report made exactly the same point as my hon. Friend. It recommended extremely strongly that a far better variety of care would be provided by close relatives within the family. However, this legislation is making it far more difficult for relatives who have to give up their jobs to look after sick parents or children. I have an extremely difficult case in my constituency where a young lady in her mid-20s is being evicted from her home, having given up her career to look after first her mother and then her father over something like a 10-year period. She has never worked, other than looking after her elderly relatives. That is the reward that such people will get if this measure becomes law.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and demonstrates the internal inconsistencies between the Government's stated intentions and the legislation that they bring before the House. That is why it is difficult for us to accept at face value almost anything that is said by Conservative Members.
For the three reasons that I have already mentioned—rent, security and succession—we support the Lords amendments. The Government may not accept the argument, but not only is it better for tenants that they should become secure rather than assured tenants, but the loss of security faced by the tenant may undermine the potential relationship between the housing associations and their future tenants at the time of purchase.
When housing associations are proposing to buy a property, they visit it, they take stock, measure it up, value it and talk to the tenants—unlike many private landlords who buy property in portfolios without ever talking to the people for whom it represents a home. One of the first questions that a tenant will ask a housing association is, "What will it mean for me?" If the housing association can reply, "You will become a secure tenant and, as a housing association tenant, you will have most of your rights that


you have now, together with some additional ones such as the right to information and consultation, the right to assign and the right to exchange", it is quite likely that that tenant will be keen to become a housing association tenant. [Interruption.] Shut up. I do not mind interventions from Conservative Members, but I find sedentary interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) who is sitting 3 ft away from me to my left, to be rather disconcerting. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon, did a Conservative Member actually speak or was that a death rattle?
If a housing association has to say to a prospective tenant, "You will become an assured tenant and we can charge you a market rent which may mean that your rent will go up by a factor of four and there are more ways in which we can get you out" it would be quite understandable if the tenants showed a degree of reluctance to have their homes taken over by the housing association. That is why I put it to the Secretary of State that it might well undermine the work of the housing associations in buying into the private rented sector and carrying out their excellent improvement work to the fabric of our deteriorating private rented stock if the Lords amendment were not allowed to stand.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be a strange irony if the Government were not prepared to allow the Lords amendment to stand. They have supported housing associations as being a source of assistance from the private sector, as members of housing associations administer them often without any fee, simply as part of a voluntary contribution to society—the Lady Bountiful image that the Tories like to propound. If the Government do not allow the amendment to stand, they will be pushing aside the voluntary private sector and handing everything over to the private sector. Is that the general gist of my hon. Friend's remarks?

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has a ready grasp of the situation, which I am sure is better than that of the Secretary of State who diverted me for a moment, because, as my hon. Friend was speaking, the Secretary of State was excavating the contents of his left nostril. [Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was not a pretty sight. [Laughter.] I am finding it difficult to continue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I turn now to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 44. Much as we like the Lords amendment, it can stand much improvement. Our amendment attempts to include among tenancies which can remain secure, and are granted after the Act comes into force tenants who become housing association tenants—[Interruption.] I think you should send for the nurse, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East seems to be in need of her.

Mr. Faulds: Yes, please.

Mr. Banks: It would appear that my hon. Friend is having a seizure—

Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend is such a comic that he must occasionally give the audience time to enjoy his quips. The more response he gets, the happier I should have thought he would be. I do not need a nurse now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I may in a little while.

Mr. Banks: I know that this is often referred to as political theatre, but I had not realised that my hon. Friend had descended from the high dramatic roles he used to play to become a low comedy actor.
As I was saying, our amendment includes among tenancies granted after the Act which can remain secure any tenants who become housing association tenants when a housing association buys a property with them as sitting tenants—this time not as sitting tenants in the private sector but as sitting tenants in the public sector. Our amendment relates to the provisions of part IV of the Bill which are the tenants' choice proposals.
When the then Minister of State was selling us the proposals in part IV, he persuasively told us that no nasty, private developer-type landlords would prowl around trying to make a quick killing out of the proposals. We were prepared to take him at his word. We thought that he might represent the acceptable face of Tory extremism. But he gave so many undertakings and was so reasonable that he could not remain in the job. That is why he was sent to the Foreign Office. I am sure he is relieved to be far from the thorny problem which the Under-Secretary of State now finds himself facing. The hon. Gentleman's move to the Foreign Office was also a demonstration of how the Government treat Conservative Members who still have residues of heart, feelings and compassion: they move them on.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the former Minister had remained at the Department of the Environment he could have overridden some of the Secretary of State's objections, rendering our arguments unnecessary? It seems likely that the Secretary of State had a word with the Prime Minister to get the Minister transferred to another Department because there was a clear difference of opinion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to amendment No. 44.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend made the point that I made earlier. When we discussed this part of the Bill before, the Minister said that only nice, respectable, friendly housing associations would be out to buy under these proposals. He did not know then that the Charity Commissioners might take a dim view of this sort of activity when carried out by bodies that were registered as charities, excluding at a stroke many housing associations from buying under this legislation. But we expect the Government to change the charity rule at any moment, to suit their needs. That is how they behave every time they find an obstacle in their path. That is the new Conservative party. Any opposition—from its Back Benchers, from the Labour party or from society in general—gets kicked.
Under part IV, a housing association may end up with a number of properties acquired from a local authority. As we have been told, some local authorities are already negotiating with housing associations to that end. In the amendment, we seek to ensure that if tenants end up as


housing association tenants they enjoy security of tenure at least equivalent to that which they had as secure tenants when the property was owned by the local authority.
Housing associations broadly support the rights that secure tenants have under the tenants' charter. It is obvious that tenants would prefer to have more rights, rather than fewer; one hardly needs a PhD to work that out. The landlords want such a provision and the tenants want it, so why on earth are the Government refusing to allow tenants to keep rights that they have enjoyed as part of their contract since they first moved in, just because the landlord changes? No such dramatic change accompanies a change of landlord in the private sector. If one private landlord sells to another, the tenant keeps the rights that he has had since he first became a tenant of the property. Why should not the same arrangement occur in the public sector? When one public sector landlord sells to another—in this case a housing association—the tenant should keep the same rights.
If the Government are not prepared to accept our amendment, it will be clearly revealed that they would like to destroy all public sector tenancies and move everyone into the hands of private landlords. I suspect that that is what they would like to do. Thank God they have not been able to do it so far, but if anyone were stupid enough to allow them back again, I fear that that is what would happen. I hope that the Government will accept our amendment.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to those points relevant to the amendments before us. I congratulate Opposition Members on maintaining a filibuster of considerable standard—even, at times, of humour—wholly unrelated to the amendments. Opposition Members clearly showed a desire to remain here through the night, which cannot be justified by the content of the amendments.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) even went so far as to suggest that his constituency would benefit from a housing action trust, and talked about widespread dereliction and the poor condition of the housing stock. It was an interesting suggestion, which we shall consider.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: No. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for hours. I have only just started.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) got into a bit of a muddle. He seemed to demand continuing subsidy for housing associations. He will know from the public expenditure line to which he referred that that is our intention. With private finance coming in, that means a greatly expanded programme and, by definition, low rents. What else is the subsidy for? The very word "subsidy" would guarantee what the hon. Gentleman seeks.
The hon. Gentleman then seemed to suggest that such houses should not be called subsidised. He must make up his mind whether he wants the subsidy or not.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has bored the House for hours already, but I shall nevertheless give way.

Mr. Hughes: I asked the Secretary of State two simple questions. First, is he changing the wording from "social housing" to "subsidised housing" as a matter of policy? Secondly, I asked at what figure rents would be set after the subsidy, so that the housing association movement and its tenants might know what sort of figure we were talking about.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything that he reads in the papers. He obviously picks up his information from gossip columns. He should really be a little more sophisticated than that. He said that now was the time when I should suddenly announce a new rents policy. I do not think that this is the time. I think that it is time to consider amendment No. 40, et alia, which are very limited, and well past the time when we should reach a conclusion on them.
With regard to the points of substance that were raised, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) asked whether the terms would be better or worse in the circumstances that he described. It will, of course, depend on the terms of the contract whether an assured tenancy is deemed by the court to offer equivalent security or not. All contracts will be different and it will be for the courts to interpret the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West asked what amendment No. 40 does. I shall tell him. It provides that where, on or after the commencement of the Bill, a landlord grants a new assured tenancy to someone who has hitherto been a tenant under a protected shorthold tenancy or a tenancy superseding such a tenancy, that new tenancy will automatically be an assured shorthold tenancy without the landlord having to serve notice to that effect. Whether the tremendous edifice of rhetoric that the hon. Gentleman built upon that simple and limited proposition is justified, I leave it to the House to decide.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked what was the Government's view of Opposition amendment (a) to amendment No. 44. It would have the effect of extending the provision to include any existing secure tenancy taken over by a housing association and would thus run counter to the Government's intention throughout the Bill that secure tenancies taken over by a housing association as part of a transfer of stock by a local authority should become new style assured tenancies. The Opposition amendment would destroy that change to the new type of tenancy and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State refers to a filibuster, but he does not know what he is talking about. I will tell him what a filibuster is—it is 273 Lords amendments. What does the Secretary of State think that he is doing coming to the House for the second time with about 300 amendments to one hell of a mess of a Bill? So far, he has sacked one Minister and pushed another out—the one sitting beside him now will not last much longer—but the person responsible for the whole mess is the Secretary of State himself. He brought it upon himself and he deserves every bit of it because he has caused more anguish, fear and anxiety to tenants in both the private and the public sector than any other Minister at the Department of the Environment ever has. People are terrified of what he is doing to them. Yet he comes here talking about a filibuster.
The Secretary of State has learnt nothing yet. So far he has learnt only that the House of Lords has given us 62


pages of serious amendments. We may occasionally drift into a moment of levity at this hour of the night, but the Secretary of State will see from Hansard that, apart from those brief moments of levity, there has been content to all our debates. The fact that he does not understand and does not care makes no odds because this wretched Bill will be a millstone around his and the Government's neck for years to come—and if he ever comes to the House with a Housing (Finance) Bill in anything like this kind of mess he will get exactly the same treatment and it will be equally well deserved.
It seems that, even now, the Secretary of State does not understand the full import of amendment No. 44 and our amendment (a) to it. I realise that he understands one point, although it has not really been mentioned in the debate. The reason why the Government do not like our amendment is that it will stop them fiddling the figures. If they managed to get enough public housing—whether from housing associations or local authorities—into some form of assured tenancy, they could then start describing those tenancies as private lets and try to claim that the number of private lets was on the increase. Yet we know that everything that the Secretary of State has said about reviving the private sector has been wrong so far. There are now 600,000 fewer homes available for rent in the private rented sector than there were eight years ago. That decline is now more steep than at any time since the 1957 abolition attempt.
The Secretary of State must deal with that failure. If he allows local authorities to keep properties, he cannot claim that the private sector is increasing. The rents of existing housing association tenants—and this is an important debate about rent levels—are set at fair rents determined by independent rent officers under the provisions of the Rent Act 1977. The Bill proposes that that regime should not apply to new housing association tenants, and in place of that protection future tenants will be part of the new deregulated system of assured tenancies at market rents that will apply to the private sector.
12.30 am
It is common ground between the Government and the voluntary housing movement that housing association rents should usually be lower than market rents. The Government have said that. They have also given public assurances—much as we may doubt their worth—that housing association rents should remain affordable for those in low-paid employment.
As my hon. Friends have said to great effect, the fact is that housing associations feel vulnerable. What the Government have managed to do—which no other Government, Tory or Labour, have achieved—is to divide the housing association movement. Some fear that their colleagues in other housing associations will be pressurised to move upmarket. In particular, the removal of Rent Act protection coincides with the introduction of a new financial regime for housing associations that will require them to raise money in the private market for new developments. With the present record level of house and land prices and the extremely high cost of borrowing, the National Federation of Housing Associations feels, probably rightly, that it is likely that housing associations will be under undue pressure to raise rents beyond the

reach of low-income households. Yet the Government say that we must increase the supply of low-cost rented accommodation.
That is the source of conflict between the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The Secretary of State knows that more houses must be built for low-cost rent. The right hon. Member for Henley recognises that that means houses at the bottom of his garden. Yet neither of them is right. The problem is that the houses likely to be built in such circumstances are not likely to be for either low-cost rent or sale.
The NFHA has studied examples of housing association tenants in different sorts of accommodation. It has considered their actual income and the rents that they currently pay, set by the rent officer, and the rent that they would have to pay if the new mixed funding scheme was operating. It also considered how housing benefit would help. The results were quite frightening. They showed that tenants in low-paid work would be paying up to 41 per cent. of their low wages in rent, even after housing benefit. One of the examples that I gave not long ago at a press conference was of a nurse who, with the new pay rise, would lose about 40 per cent. of her salary in rent. That is what we are talking about tonight. That is why we are angry. In several cases housing benefit does not even begin to help until 40 per cent. of income disappears in rent. Housing benefit does not make rent affordable to low-income households.
The NFHA survey of new tenants—those who became housing association tenants this year—showed that their average weekly household income was £77·50. Where at least one person was in work, that rose to £115·64, just over half the national average of £224 a week. Housing association tenants overwhelmingly fall into the low-income category. Because of that, the NFHA argues that, on average, no more than one fifth of their income should be spent on rent. For a long time I have been arguing with many others that if an individual or family is paying more than one fifth of its income in rent or on a mortgage, it cannot do so for long without getting into serious economic trouble and other problems, including, in the worst examples, homelessness.
Housing charities need to be mindful of their charitable trusts which require them to provide for those in necessitous circumstances in terms appropriate to their means. For them, the purpose of their activities is not merely the provision of housing—private landlords do that—but the relief of poverty through the provision of affordable housing. That is what united the Labour and Tory parties in 1974 when we set up the housing associations. It is this Secretary of State who is dividing the House on that issue.
We should remember that 80 per cent. of housing associations are charities. Let us also remember that the Charity Commissioners are saying that it would not be a charitable act for housing associations to take over tenanted properties. Much as the DOE is leaning on them and trying to get them to change the ruling, every housing association knows that it must ask itself this question: if in the judgment of the Charity Commissioners it is not a charitable act to take over tenanted properties, why is it doing so? If the answer is that some bad management needs to be dealt with and the tenants want it, that is the only acceptable reason. Anything else smacks of financial opportunism and building a financial base, leading to the


sort of situation that exists with companies where one large organisation bids for a smaller one to expand its financial or geographical base. That is what housing associations are worried about and why small associations fear the large predator companies.
There is no statutory backing for the Government's intention that rents should be affordable. The Bill abolishes the present statutory limitation to fair rent levels for new housing association tenants and puts nothing in its place, except the so-called tenants' guarantee, policed by the Housing Corporation. The guarantee's provisions are non-statutory and it is woefully weak on rent levels. It states of rents:
Where accommodation has been provided with the assistance of a public subsidy, or purchased from a public body, such as a local authority or New Town, housing associations are expected to set and maintain their rents at levels wit hin the reach of those in low-paid employment. This will often entail setting rents below market levels. Associations should not discriminate in their rent setting between tenants in receipt of housing benefit and others on below average incomes…In addition they are expected to take account of the size, amenities, situation and condition of the accommodation; and the need to cover the costs after subsidy, of loan charges, and management and maintenance including the requirement to make prudent provision for future repairs.
Those two requirements will conflict and, in certain areas, can lead to the assured tenancy rents being higher than market rents.
We have sought by previous amendments to strengthen the position of tenants. We want the Government to come up with some definition of affordability and to consult housing associations before doing so. They cannot go on passing the buck on rents back to housing associations when the grant levels they are offering imply massive rent rises.
The Secretary of State once said to me that he recognised that he had a problem in the south of England because of the high market rents. I said that, if he paid housing benefit that would enable people on lower incomes to pay market rents in the south, the bill would come to billions of pounds. That still would not solve the problem because of the tapers and cut-offs in housing benefit, and the Secretary of State knows that. That is why the Government have gone back on their assumption that they can increase housing benefit. They realised that if they did they would cost themselves billions of pounds without even beginning to address the problem in the south of England. That is the mess that they have got themselves into, but it pales into insignificance compared with the mess of the people who have to pay that bill.
That is why I have often said that we shall reintroduce rents set independently of the landlord, which means controls on rents. Not only would a Labour Government do that, but so will a future Tory Government because it will be impossible to use market rents without increasing housing benefit to the extent that the subsidy on housing benefit exceeds that of the subsidy to the person who is buying a house with mortgage interest tax relief. At present, the figure for that is about £5 billion. I do not believe that the Government will allow a £1 billion increase, let alone one of £5 billion. If that is right, the only course open to them is again to impose rent controls. The alternative would be rents that nobody could afford.
Housing association tenants include some of the poorest households in the country, as the National Federation of Housing Associations survey shows. It

cannot be right to expect them to pay 30 or 40 per cent. in rent—in some cases more—from their already low incomes when they will have to pay rates, water charges and the poll tax. There must be some guidelines of affordability. This is an important matter and we shall divide the House on the amendment.

Mrs. Mahon: rose——

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division——

Mrs. Mahon: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet and wanted to speak before you called the Division. Labour Members saw that. I have been waiting to speak in the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have put the Question and we are in the middle of a Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 68, Noes 169.

Division No. 482]
[12.40 am


AYES


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McCartney, Ian


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barron, Kevin
Meale, Alan


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beith, A. J.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Boateng, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Bradley, Keith
Morley, Elliott


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nellist, Dave


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Parry, Robert


Clay, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Clelland, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Cohen, Harry
Redmond, Martin


Crowther, Stan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cryer, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ruddock, Joan


Cunningham, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Dixon, Don
Soley, Clive


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fatchett, Derek
Vaz, Keith


Faulds, Andrew
Wall, Pat


Fearn, Ronald
Wallace, James


Flynn, Paul
Walley, Joan


Fraser, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butler, Chris


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butterfill, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carrington, Matthew






Carttiss, Michael
Marland, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cran, James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Durant, Tony
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nelson, Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patnick, Irvine


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Pawsey, James


Grist, Ian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Price, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Raffan, Keith


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Haselhurst, Alan
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayward, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Heddle, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hill, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hind, Kenneth
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Holt, Richard
Sims, Roger


Hordern, Sir Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Stevens, Lewis


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Irvine, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jack, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Janman, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jessel, Toby
Thurnham, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Viggers, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Waddington, Rt Hon David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Walden, George


Knapman, Roger
Waller, Gary


Knowles, Michael
Ward, John


Latham, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Ivan
Warren, Kenneth


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Watts, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Peter
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Widdecombe, Ann


Lord, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Woodcock, Mike


Maclean, David



McLoughlin, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Mans, Keith
Mr Tom Sackville.


Maples, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr.Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker.I wish to ask you a question about procedure during our deliberations on Lords amendments. On the previous batch of amendments there was a substantial and, I thoutht, reasoned debate setting

out the position of the Opposition and of the Government. The Secretary of State intervend in the debate—no doubt he has the right to choose when to speak—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) responded.
The crucial rights in the House are not those of Front-Bench Members but those of Back-Bench Members,who must be able to defend the interests of their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon),who has been here for a long time—[Interruption.] She has certainly been here for far longer than the Conservative Members who are criticising her now. My hon. Friend got to her feet and tried to catch your eye, My.Deputy Speaker,because she wished to defend,as a Back-Bench Member should, the interests of her constituents.
I do not criticisr you, Mr.Deputy Speaker, but at that stage you decided to call the Division. Surely it is your job to protect the rights of Back-Bench Members—

Mr.Deputy Speaker: Order.It is not for any hon. Member to lecture me about my job. As the hon. Gentleman fairly conceded,we had a thorough debate on that it is not for right hon. and hon. Members to decide when they take part in a debate. Members take part in a debate when they are called to do so by the Chair.
When the Secretary of State rose, no other hon. Member was trying to catch my eye. Therefor, I called the Secretary of State. Equally, when he sat down, only the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman was trying to catch my eye. Therefore, I called the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). It seemed to me to be following the conventions of the House that, after adequate dabate, the two Front-Bench spokesmen were winding up the debate. Therefore, at the conclusion of their remarks, I put the Question, consistent with the normal practices of the House.
I add that the question of who is called to speak in a debate is a matter for thediscretion of the Chair.

Mr.Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker. You will recall that last night, during the debate on the private Bill, you were standing outside the Chamber watching the proceedings. A Conservative Member walked into the Chamber and was immediately called to speak by the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot comment or rule upon matters that occurred yesterday.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that you have called your Member of Parliament, perhaps you will allow me to help. There was a fairly lengthy debate on the previous group of important amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is relatively new to the House and, as a member of a minority—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] She is one of the few women Members of the House. Since no women Members spoke in the debate, and since we were discussing housing, I should have thought that it would have been a good idea to give someone who is relatively new and who stood up after the two Front-Bench spokesmen a chance to put her views on housing in Halifax. I hope that in future discussions on the Bill you will keep an eye out for my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and call her to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know reasonable comment. I share his regret that the hon. Lady that that was not a point of order, but it was a perfectly

Clause 35

REMOVAL OF SPECIAL REGIMES FOR TENANCIES OF HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS ETC

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 27, at end insert—
(4) If, on or after the commencement of this Act, the interest of the landlord under a protected or statutory tenancy becomes held by a housing association, a housing trust, the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales, nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall prevent the tenancy from being a housing association tenancy or a secure tenancy and, accordingly, in such a case section 80 of the Housing Act 1985 (and any enactment which refers to that section) shall have effect without regard to the repeal of provisions of that section effected by this Act.
(5) In subsection (4) above "housing association" and "housing trust" have the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.

1 am

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Amendmetn (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 3,after first ?a?,insert ?secure?.—[Mr.Tony Banks.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 159.

Division No. 483]
[1.2 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McCartney, Ian


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barron, Kevin
Meale, Alan


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beith, A. J.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Boateng, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Bradley, Keith
Morley, Elliott


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Nellist, Dave


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Parry, Robert


Clay, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Clelland, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Cohen, Harry
Redmond, Martin


Crowther, Stan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cryer, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ruddock, Joan


Cunningham, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Dixon, Don
Soley, Clive


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Spearing, Nigel


Fatchett, Derek
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Faulds, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Fearn, Ronald
Wall, Pat


Flynn, Paul
Wallace, James


Fraser, John
Walley, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wareing, Robert N.


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Winnick, David


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Frank Cook.


Leadbitter, Ted





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Batiste, Spencer


Amos, Alan
Bellingham, Henry


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert

reasonable comment. I share his regret that the hon. Lady has not had a chance to take part in out proceedings, and I shall bear in mind his wish, as always, to be helpful.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 43 agreed to.


Boswell, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bowis, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brazier, Julian
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bright, Graham
Knapman, Roger


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Knowles, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Latham, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lawrence, Ivan


Burns, Simon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Burt, Alistair
Lilley, Peter


Butler, Chris
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lord, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Carrington, Matthew
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Carttiss, Michael
Maclean, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maples, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Marland, Paul


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Durant, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mills, Iain


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gow, Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Holt, Richard
Raffan, Keith


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irvine, Michael
Sims, Roger


Jack, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Janman, Tim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Stanbrook, Ivor






Stanley, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Watts, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Mike


Twinn, Dr Ian



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Michael Mallon.


Walden, George

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 44 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration of Lords amendments be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Dr. John Cunningham: The Government are again in a mess with their legislation, thanks to the obduracy of the Secretary of State for the Environment—principally—and the people responsible for this abysmal piece of legislation.
1.15 am
Tonight, the House has to consider 62 pages of more than 270 amendments, mainly emanating from the Government. I make it clear that we are perfectly willing, indeed keen, to continue debating the issues. We know that Conservative Members do not want those issues to be the subject of proper scrutiny or debate, because they are deeply embarrassed about their consequences for millions of families throughout the country.
We know also that matters such as a change of landlord by rigged or gerrymandered voting systems are not among those that the Government want rigorously examined. We know that the Bill's implications and the housing action trust proposals will affect not only thousands of families but whole neighbourhoods and communities. We know also that those proposals have caused misery, distress and uncertainty among communities the length and breadth of the country, and will continue doing so if the Bill is left unamended.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is in the process of hanging a second major albatross around the Government's neck. First there was the poll tax, and now the Housing Bill. It is something of a surprise that the right hon. Gentleman has quit so early in the discussions. After all, it was his well-known boast in the Committee Corridor when this legislation was being considered concurrently with the poll tax Bill that the Housing Bill was more interesting, principally because, as he claimed, he was the author of it. I hope that the Secretary of State's right hon. and hon. Friends are thinking about the quagmire into which he is again leading them.
That is bad enough. What is worse is the Bill's terrible consequences for families in council and private tenancies whom it will affect. I can understand the Secretary of State being miffed about what has happened, but what is more surprising is his apparent belief—of which he was able to convince his right hon. and hon. Friends—that somehow these matters would slide quietly through the House and that we would not be asking serious and searching questions about them.
I have every confidence in my hon. Friends' ability to ask all the questions. I have been here almost all evening, and the questions have been asked but have not been answered. We shall go on asking those questions until we are given the answers.
The Government have not made their intentions clear, but we suspect that there is a guillotine lurking round the corner. It is my hope—and I trust that Conservative Members have the good grace to share it with me—that we shall not see the abandonment on Friday of the promised debate on housing and homelessness in response to the Select Committee on the Environment's second report.

Mr. Trippier: We have had it.

Dr. Cunningham: The Under-Secretary says, "We've had it." Those may be prophetic words, because, judging by his performance so far, if anybody has had it, I guess that he has. He will be only the latest in a line of victims of the willingness of the Secretary of State to sacrifice others on the altar of his stupid ideas and ideological nonsense about how to handle housing and homelessness.
We want to continue the debate now, and we are opposed to the motion to terminate discussion.

Mrs. Mahon: I particularly wished to speak on amendment 44 and the amendment to it, amendment (a), and have been unable to do so. I wanted to speak even more after hearing the Secretary of State refuse yet again to answer points put by my hon. Friends. He treated the House with his usual contempt in his arrogant public-school manner, which I find offensive. My constituents, many of whom live on run-down estates and many of whom are elderly, have been caused the utmost anxiety by this dreadful Bill. They expect and deserve better. In my opinion, the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team have shown themselves unfit to run even the smallest council.
Conservative Members have shown time after time their inability to understand the genuine concerns of people who need decent housing. Let me briefly run through the package of rights highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), when the Secretary of State refused to answer.
Opposition Member after Opposition Member has pleaded for something to be done about security of tenure, but all we have been allowed is a very poor performance by the new Minister and no answers whatever. He does not understand what he is doing to people. The mark of a civilised society is the ability to house its people adequately, but the Minister does not even understand the dreadful consequences that the Bill will have.
I wanted to question the Secretary of State about affordable rents. Homelessness is increasing for many reasons, but one of them is quite simple: people on small incomes simply cannot afford soaring rents. When people do not have enough money at the end of the week to feed themselves and to pay the rent, something gives. People are being thrown out on to the streets, and this rotten Bill will throw out thousands more.
I also wanted to talk about other rights, such as the right of succession. Opposition Members wanted to discuss many more issues, but the debate has been deliberately stifled. Let me tell the Secretary of State that if he thinks that he has had it hot up to now, he has seen nothing yet. He is going to be buried in the misery that he is inflicting on the people of this country.

Mr. Cryer: I wish to speak against the proposal. For one thing, several members of the Liberal party are present. Normally they go home early, and now that we have got them here it seems appropriate to continue the debate and give them an opportunity to speak.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has been rather inconvenienced. I dare say that he may have been round at the American embassy last night, watching the election results. He is a bit overtired, and has decided that he cannot be bothered to take the Bill through the House tonight, so he will abandon it. It will not be abandoned for long, because the Secretary of State and his cronies will have it in mind to produce a guillotine. They will trample on the rights of Parliament to engage in proper debate. We are willing to examine the Bill in detail, to make our criticisms and to table amendments. We are here, willing and able to debate this noxious measure. If the Secretary of State and his cronies on the Treasury Bench decide to bring in a guillotine, everyone outside the House should know that the Labour Opposition were here, willing to debate for hour after hour, and if the Government make any cuts, they are deliberately curtailing debate in order to ride rough-shod with their seedy majority of estate agents and merchant bankers and get-rich-quick City people who will troop through the Lobby and get them their majority. It is very important that we should make the position absolutely clear.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, millions of people fear the legislation. They envisage their security of tenure being eroded and they envisage being treated by the Secretary of State as so many chattels to be sold along with whole council estates. They can envisage quangos being imposed on them.
It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not anxious to proceed with the Bill, as he has acted on it without the legislative authority of the House. He has appointed housing action trusts. The Bill has not been approved by the Houses of Parliament. What could be more offensive to the democratic process than for an ex-public schoolboy, thinking that he has got so far with the Bill, to carry it out although it has not been approved? It is surprising that the Secretary of State is ignoring the House and deploring procedure so that he can get a bit of shut-eye and get to a meeting with the Leader of the House.

Mr. Skinner: The Secretary of State does not want to get to a meeting. He has an appointment in the morning. He has to get the bag out again. He has to troop behind the Prime Minister who has a photo opportunity lined up somewhere in Green park. That is what he is up to. The Prime Minister's husband will be behind them because he is in the refuse disposal business as the deputy managing director of Attwoods. He is not satisfied with doing it on the cheap. He is going to organise a contract and have a gin and tonic with the board while settling the amount of money.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is spot on. In addition, the Secretary of State will be having a meeting with the Leader of the House—they are having it right now—to decide what they will do to rescue the Bill.
I am particularly concerned to oppose the progress motion because I have had two meetings at Bierley estate,

a big estate in my constituency. The tenants were outraged by the proposal. I went through every detail of the Bill, and they are particularly anxious about the voting proposals.
We want to know whether they plan to cheat the tenants out of the right to reject the proposals to flog off their homes to private landlords so that their position is clarified. They want to know whether the Government take the view that people who are away in hospital, on holiday or wherever should not be included in the voting rights because they will be counted as being against the proposal not to have private landlords. The people of Bierley estate and other estates are anxious. The people of Bierley estate and other estates in Bradford and every other city should know that when I was raising the question of tenants' right to vote, the Secretary of State walked out without providing an answer. In so doing, he treated the tenants of the estate with contempt. The Secretary of State has left the Chamber to consider another planning application in his backyard in Cirencester and Tewkesbury, thus showing his contempt for the people whom we represent.
1.30 am
The tenants of Bierley estate have produced a petition. I told them that this debate was taking place tonight. They held a vote, and voted overwhelmingly against their estate being sold off to private landlords. I wanted an opportunity to go through the petition in a debate and outline what my constituents think of the Secretary of State's proposals. I am being denied that opportunity.
I know what the Government have in mind: a three-hour guillotined debate. The tenants of Bierley and millions of others throughout the country will be denied the opportunity of having their opinions voiced by my hon. Friends due to the Government's chicanery, viciousness and use of the "Pickles" method of chopping debate.
The Tory councillors in Bradford say that council meetings are not secret, but do my hon. Friends know that, on 25 October, when they were discussing the sacking of 9,000 people, Tory councillors in Bradford turned off the microphones so that people in the public gallery could not hear what they were saying? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, prevented the public from hearing his remarks directly. He addressed them to journalists, whom he blamed for reporting them accurately. That will prove to be an albatross—there are a few here tonight—around his plump neck.
I want to express my outrage at the Government's shoddy tactics, employed to deny Opposition Members a first-class opportunity to discuss this Bill in detail. Let the tenants of Bierley know that I have mentioned their petition to all the smug Conservative Members sitting comfortably on the Treasury Benches, who are causing so much harm to working people and their families. They will know that our opportunity for debate has been curtailed by the Government.
My guess is that the Government will come trundling in with the Bill on Friday: we shall oppose it tooth and nail, just as, united, we oppose this attempt to curtail debate on this miserable, wretched, obnoxious measure, which should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

Mr. Pike: I speak against the motion to adjourn the debate. We should have a chance to debate the Bill. In


July, I called it a shambles of a Bill, but that was too polite. It is a squalid, disgraceful Bill that fails to tackle any of the housing problems in so many parts of the country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, we know that the Government will return with a guillotine that will deny us an adequate opportunity to debate the legislation's important provisions.
We must remember the history of the Bill's progress. It was not given enough time in Committee for proper debate, yet the Government massively amended it there—to such an extent that the Bill that emerged bore little resemblance to the Bill that went into Committee.
On Report, the Government again amended the Bill extensively. They did not allow us time to debate the amendments, and I well recall the evening when we called Division after Division because the guillotine had curtailed debate on many important proposals.
What has happened since then? A large number of amendments were tabled by the Government in another place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said earlier. But, once again, the Government are not prepared to allow time for this democratically elected House to debate the important implications of the Bill.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an even greater shambles than he thinks? It is a composite shambles. At the moment we are debating legislation for England and Wales but we should presently have been coming to amendments to the Scottish housing legislation. The Housing (Scotland) Bill was supposed to have reached the statute book last week. Because the Government got that wrong too, and because they have already begun transferring public sector housing into the private sector in Scotland, there are five groups of amendments affecting Scotland before us tonight. The Government have brought civil servants down from Edinburgh to cover the debate. They will have to go home as a result of the motion to adjourn consideration and when we come back again—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is intervening and should not be making speech.

Mr. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has made a valid point.
When discussing the Government's disgraceful move to stop democratic debate of the proposals we must take into account the fact that last week the Prime Minister was lecturing Poland on moves towards democracy. The Government repeatedly curtail democracy—in the House, in the trade unions and in local government.
On 14 July, I suggested to the Leader of the House at business questions that the Bill was a shambles and that if the Government really wanted to conduct the legislation properly, the honourable course would be to withdraw the Bill and introduce a new Bill in the new Session dealing with the country's housing problems. The right hon. Gentleman said that he knew that I was trying to help the Government. I again suggest that if he really wants to take the positive way forward and prevent further debate, the most acceptable solution would be to tell us that the

Government are prepared to think again to withdraw the Bill and to bring back a Bill in the next, Session to deal properly with our housing problems.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an extraordinary Bill, and this extraordinary saga is likely to have an extrordinary conclusion. The Bill came before the House on 19 November last year. It was one of the first Bills that the Government introduced after the election. It was overtaken by many Bills on the way. It was overtaken because the Government had left bits out when they published it and they had to scrap the first edition and reprint it and because it did not do what the Prime Minister thought it would do.
Two days before the election, the Prime Minister wrote to a tenant in south London explaining that the key part of the Bill, which allegedly gives tenants choice, would depend on a majority of tenants voting in favour of any proposal. A few months ago at Prime Minister's Question Time, I asked how the Prime Minister reconciled that with the fiddled voting system that appeared in the Bill. The Prime Minister said that, as far as she recollected, there was no fiddled voting system and that a majority of tenants was needed to support a proposed change of landlord. She got it wrong. Presumably it was pointed out to her that the Secretary of State and other Ministers had changed the system and produced a Bill with the most extraordinary voting system that we have ever known. The Education Reform Bill requires a majority of the parents voting to vote in favour before a school can opt out. This week the Government proposed an employment code, suggesting that a simple majority would not be a representative view from the work force and requiring a 70 per cent. majority. Yet in this Bill they first proposed a voting system whereby, in a block of 100, the decision to opt out could be taken by just one tenant voting in favour and 49 against. In a letter to me in August the Prime Minister referred to that system as "approval by informed acquiescence". A year after the Bill first saw light, although it was somewhat murky, the country now understands what that means. It means that those who say nothing are presumed to agree with the Prime Minister and to have no view of their own. The Prime Minister expects council tenants to behave like her Cabinet—if she says it will be done, it will be done. That is then called "tenants' choice". Eighty per cent. or more of my constituents are council tenants. What they understand to be the result of the Bill is not tenants' choice but tenants' fear—fear of having people they never chose taking over their homes without their consent and contrary to their wishes. That is not tenants' choice. It is Government diktat—from a Government who lecture others about dictatorship when, at home, they take choice away from the people whom they purport to represent.
There have been two further extraordinary events. There was a proposal that six areas of Britain should have their housing nationalised, taken over by Government quangos and then privatised, without any voting at all. The tenants were not to be allowed any say at all. It was not until the Under-Secretary of State—and the Secretary of State, who flies in and out of the Chamber according to how often his nicotine addiction gets the better of him and forces him to take additional health-reducing sustenance behind the Speaker's chair—went to meet the tenants that they realised that the tenants actually believed that they should have a say in whether their housing was to be taken


over. At the last moment, the team who were at the Department when the Bill started having been reshuffled—the Minister of State was sent to the Foreign Office and the Under-Secretary of State back to Broxbourne—a member of the House of Lords who had never been elected by anyone and would probably not know a constituent if he saw one was released to meet the world on a Sunday programme and suddenly announced that tenants in housing action trust areas would have a vote after all. Twelve months on, the Government generously agree that tenants can have a say. My hon. Friends and I are here today in substantial numbers—[Interruption.] The Division records will show that more than two-thirds of our parliamentary party—the very good biblical number of 13—have been present because we believe that it is inappropriate for a Government who have taken a year to get this far suddenly to seek to postpone debate.
We want to debate housing action trusts and tenants' choice. We want to debate the amendments. Fifty three of the 62 groups of amendments selected by Mr. Speaker have not yet been debated. If the Government intend to end this Session with a guillotine on the Bill, which I understand will take three hours of debate, and then force through 53 groups of amendments in the remaining days of this Parliament, they might be advised to think again about how they could make their life just a little easier.
I shall give the Government a simple piece of advice—[HON. MEMBERS: Resign."] That is certainly an option that the Government are entitled to take. If they insist on staying in power and if they say that they actually understand that tenants are people with rights who should have a say, and that millions of people do not accept a fiddled voting system as one with any democratic authority, we should at least have the opportunity to improve what is a travesty of democratic legislation. Any attempt to steamroller it through the House will meet with as much resistance as it is possible to give. I sincerely hope that the Government have a deathbed repentence—repent now and die later.

Mr. Winnick: The Bill is crucial to many of our constituents because it removes protection in the private rented sector. Anyone who becomes a private tenant will be subject to market rents and his security of tenure will be limited. Obviously, we must be concerned about that. It is a crooked system. There is no other way to describe a system under which anyone who abstains is counted as being in favour of his accommodation being taken over by the private sector. Private landlords, even though they will be approved—for what that is worth—can take over any accommodation in our constituencies. There is no way that the local authority can say no. That is why there is so much anxiety.
It is only because of pressure throughout the country and the way that the tenants affected by the housing action trusts made clear their strong opposition that even this Government were forced to listen and, hence, there will be some sort of vote. But why was that not suggested in the first place? Why should those tenants have their properties taken over by quangos and then, in turn, by the private sector, without them being given any vote? So much for a Government who talk about democracy.
All those matters require as much debate as possible because they are crucial to our constituents. Quite a

number of Conservative right hon. and hon. Members have vested interests in the Bill and are likely to profit from it. It would be interesting if they were to declare their interests before going into the Lobby.
Someone outside this House—he is not a Tory—has said that he is in favour of the Bill. I refer to Mr. Hoogstraten, one of the most notorious landlords in this country. He is a notorious crook who has been in prison. On a recent television programme he described his tenants as scumbags. There is no lesson that Rachman could have taught that man. When he was asked what he thought of the Bill, he said that it was a step in the right direction. The Bill is a step in the direction for every crook, for every unscrupulous person in the property market, for everyone who wants to make a fast buck and for everyone who wants to create misery and hardship. The Bill represents an advance for such people and they want it on the statute book.
I was a councillor in Brent when the Rent Act 1957 was put on the statute book. Despite all the housing problems there, we, the Labour-controlled council, took upon ourselves the added responsibility of rehousing people who were evicted lawfully under that legislation. All our predecessors' warnings about what would happen, the insecurity and exploitation turned out to be right. They knew what they were talking about. Rachman was not known in 1957, but by 1961 his name was known the length and breadth of the country. We warn today that there will be other Rachmans and Hoogstratens who recognise not only the sums that can be made from new lettings at a market rent, but the danger of private tenants who have protection. There will be every incentive for unscrupulous gangster landlords to get those tenants out because, when the accommodation becomes vacant, it can be relet at market rents.
The Bill is a disgrace. It will not do anything for the homeless, our constituents or young married couples who are desperate for accommodation but cannot afford a mortgage and live either in a rented room or with their in-laws. It will not help people in hardship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, there is not a Member of Parliament who does not have adequate housing. I have adequate accommodation and not one of us can claim housing hardship. Surely our constituents have as much right to it. That is why we oppose the Bill. It will not help them and in many ways it will make their position worse. It is a disgrace.
The Prime Minister goes to Poland and lectures the leadership there. If there is any lecturing to be done, it can come from people like us rather than from her. Time and again she uses the guillotine to ensure that Bills such as this are not adequately debated. The guillotine will fall on Friday or Monday and debates will be restricted on clauses which are of the utmost concern to our constituents.
The Bill is a disgrace and its handling has been a disgrace. We shall continue to fight it before and after it goes on the statute book. It is like the Tory 1957 Act. It is ammunition for gangsters and racketeers, and it is wholly opposed to everything that we believe in.
My hon. Friends may not be aware that when the 1957 Act was being repealed by the Labour Government who came to office in 1964—we promised to repeal it during the election—the Tory Opposition did not vote against the Labour legislation. The time will come when we form a Government and repeal this obnoxious legislation which will be so discredited that the Tory Opposition will do


precisely the same. They will not vote against the legislation because we shall have been proved right, as our predecessors were 30 years ago.

Mr. Fraser: I am outraged by this abridgement of debate. Somewhere on your desk, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a letter that I sent to Mr. Speaker last Thursday saying that I wanted to speak about housing action trusts. I promised the occupants of 3,000 dwellings, who are part of a HAT, that I would try to say something on their behalf, but there will be little opportunity to do so if the motion is passed.
Those tenants have won a victory. At Question Time last Wednesday, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would accept a ballot by the tenants, but he dismissed the proposition arrogantly. We now have government not by Parliament but by Dimbleby, and on Sunday the Earl of Caithness told David Dimbleby that, contrary to what the Secretary of State told me last week, there would be a ballot by tenants. Although it is a victory, it is not sufficient. We should have preferred the Lords amendment to be passed, but at least it is some advance.
Coupled with the concession made on television on Sunday was a threat of blackmail to 3,000 HAT tenants in my constituency. They were told that if they did not vote for a HAT they would not receive a slice of the £192 million that the Government are allocating to HATs. If the Secretary of State had done that during a parliamentary election he would have been convicted of corrupt practices. He is engaging in blackmail and demanding with menaces by saying, "If you do not vote for a HAT you will not receive a share of the money." On the one hand, tenants are being asked to vote for the Secretary of State's proposals, but on the other for a denial of those funds and a continuation of damp and too much asbestos. They are being asked to choose between the Secretary of State and cockroaches. Some would say that that is a difficult choice to make, but there is a more serious side to this matter. Those 3,000 homes will not be any different whether they are in or out of a HAT. There will still be the same damp and the same lack of insulation. They will still need improvement and will not be sufficiently heated; some will need money spent on them.
My constituents want to explore with the Secretary of State the reason why they will be bribed to vote for a HAT or be denied access to the money. I have no doubt that they will vote against a HAT, but if the Secretary of State wants to save time he should remove part III of the Bill. Once there has been a ballot, HATs will be as dead as the dodo.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend mentioned intimidation. We have just watched the Tory Chief Whip move from his corner seat and go to Madam Deputy Speaker to engage in intimidation against her to get a closure—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that no hon. Member intimidates me.

Mr. Fraser: I hope that the motion will not be passed and that we shall have an opportunity to discuss matters that affect about 6,000 of my constituents. No parliamentary announcement was made about the change of HATs; no parliamentary statement was made last week. The press office at the Department of the Environment had

to be opened on Sunday afternoon after the David Dimbleby broadcast to save Ministers' faces by issuing a press notice.

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps the Government have announced a new principle of constitution—no television without representation.

Mr. Fraser: In the light of what has happened recently, no television without repression.
I protest that the chance to rehearse fully the arguments that my constituents in HATs have asked me to advance has been curtailed. I shall vote with all the strength that I can against the motion.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not think that any Opposition Member would believe for a moment that the Government are democrats. They are not democratic in the way in which they operate. They abuse the rights of the House as they abuse our citizens. We understand that, but we cannot take the hypocrisy of all this. We know, as does everyone else involved in housing, that the Bill will not provide one additional unit of accommodation. It is nothing to do with the housing crisis; it is all about the Conservative party's ideology. The Conservatives hate local authorities providing housing and they will do everything they can—the Bill is part of that strategy—to eliminate the provision of housing by local authorities. We have the evidence of the Government's words and of our eyes when we see their actions.
2 am
We deplore the Bill. It is a lousy, rotten Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. The people know that. It is impossible for us to stomach the Government's hypocrisy. They are altering the basis of public sector tenancies. They hope to hand large swathes of council tenants into the hands of the Hoogstratens and the nasty gangster landlords who are waiting for the Bill to get on to the statute book. We want the opportunity to expose the bankruptcy of the Government's case, and we need time to do that.
The Government are clearly in a mess. Although I found the Bill iniquitous in the extreme, I had some pleasure in being the agency Whip who was brought back to do his little bit to stall its passage towards the statute book. The Conservative Benches have sometimes been full of Members and sometimes almost empty, but no one has been prepared to answer our case. They just want to steamroller the Bill through Parliament. They want to steamroller the rights of Parliament.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said, especially about local authorities and reasonable rents. Does he agree that it would be in the interests of many Government supporters to follow the Bill because its purpose is not just as my hon. Friend has described it but is to raise the general costs of housing for everyone, including private tenants, to make the housing market equal to the market in everything else, and therefore to put up the cost of housing relative to anything else and to be inflationary, which is contrary to the Prime Minister's claimed objectives? That is the degree of the cunning of the Conservatives who are not there tonight.

Mr. Banks: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. If we had had a proper debate which continued throughout today, he could have made those points. It appears that we shall be denied the opportunity to hear him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the Bill will be an albatross around the neck of the Secretary of State. I shall not go all the way through it, but I remind the House of the first few lines of Coleridge's "The Ancient Mariner":
It is an ancient Mariner,
And he stoppeth one of three.
'By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,
Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?'
I shall stop there because, although one may think that the Secretary of State resembles the ancient mariner, he has neither a beard nor a glittering eye. If there were any glitter in one of those eyes which showed any humanity, we would know that it was a glass eye. The Bill will be an albatross around his neck and we shall hang it there.

Mr. Boateng: The Secretary of State is now with us. [HON. MEMBERS: "In body."] During the time that you have been out of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have missed a rather interesting, not to say macabre, phenomenon surrounding the person of the Secretary of State.
To outline it briefly, what has happened is that there have been unpleasant manifestations of political will on the Government Benches. As soon as such manifestation has taken place—the most recent of them is the desire of those who sit on the Government Benches to curtail the debate—the Secretary of State disappears and melts into the background, one knows not where. One suspects that he goes somewhere to revitalise his vital forces. He goes away—dematerialises—and then, some time later, manifests himself once again on the Government Benches. That has happened time after time throughout the debate.
Why should that be? The answer may lie in one aspect of this noxious Bill that we are being denied the right to discuss this evening—housing action trusts, the method by which they will come into existence and the way in which properties can be transferred from the trusts into the hands of private developers.
The question that Ministers were unable to answer during earlier deliberations on the Floor of the House and in Committee is precisely the role of the dead in the voting. Any understanding of how this manifestation of the public will is to take place makes it quite clear that for the first time ever the dead will be given a vote. For the first time ever the dead will be seen positively to acquiesce—

Mr. Simon Hughes: It will be informed acquiescence.

Mr. Boateng: Yes. There will be informed acquiescence on the part of the dead. When it is viewed in that rather macabre light, the disappearance and then the reappearance, or manifestation once more, of the Secretary of State becomes that much more clear.

Mr. Hughes: We have always known that the Prime Minister believes that she has great power when communicating with the living. This is an extension of her belief in her new spiritual or supernatural prowess.

Mr. Boateng: That is indeed so, and the Secretary of State is the cat on her broomstick. Our fear is that the Secretary of State is among the undead—the living dead.

Once one has made that vital conceptual leap, his appearances and disappearances during the debate become totally explicable.

Mr. Skinner: Where do these series of macabre incidents take place? Would I be right to assume that they take place in Finchley at a Westminster council cemetery? What is the charge for witnessing these scenes? Is it 5p, or is it £2 million? Who is on the gate? Is it Lady Porter? Is she in charge? Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason the Government intend to close the debate shortly is that there is a Cabinet meeting in the morning—well, some people call it a Cabinet meeting but others call it the "Spitting Image" show.

Mr. Boateng: A "Spitting Image" show—or a seance? Which is it?
There is a way of determining the undead. In the absence of a silver bullet, and not wishing to descend to the level of a stake through the heart, one is driven to a time-honoured process. In this I have been greatly assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has provided me with a mirror. All that I need do is to put this picture of the Secretary of State in front of the mirror. If it does not immediately manifest itself in the mirror, the Secretary of State is truly of the undead. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no image in the mirror.
But I digress slightly from this serious debate. Housing action trusts are a fundamental denial of democratic rights. They are the very negation of the people's right to choose. Of late, we have heard much from the Prime Minister about the people's right to choose. She went to Poland and lectured General Jaruzelski. In breathy tones, she said, "You know, people ought to be able to make vital choices that affect their lives. They ought to be able to make those choices. And do you know what we have found when we give them the opportunity to make those choices? Well, normally, you know, people make the right choice." That is what the Prime Minister said in Poland; why does she not give that right to the people who live on estates in this country? When she does, we can have a little more confidence in the assurances given to us by Ministers.
The Government do not trust the people. They will not allow an open debate on this vital issue. As long as they continue to deny us the opportunity to debate the Bill, they must recognise that we shall push the matter here and in the country at large. We shall fight this Bill from here to Halifax.

Ms. Primarolo: When the Bill was introduced by the former Minister for housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), it was heralded as the most radical housing Bill this century. The offensive tactics that the Government have used as the Bill progressed through Committee, Report stage and the other place were certainly radical. It is strange that the Government are surprised that we oppose the Bill so vigorously. They are trying to reverse an important principle that was enshrined many years ago in the Housing Acts of Addison and Wheatley—that housing should be provided on the basis of need, at a reasonable cost, and that profit should not be made from that provision. It should be a social provision. The Bill would completely undermine that principle.
The Government have been creative in the provision of information to the public about what has happened in Parliament. They have not always told the truth. On 6 November, on the programme "On the Record", which seems to be more effective in obtaining answers from the Government than anyone else, the Earl of Caithness—under pressure—promised twice in the interview that tenants transferring into housing action trusts would have the right to vote and that a simple majority would suffice. That has not happened. We are told that many of the amendments are technical, but examination of the Official Report of the other place reveals that there was no debate of some amendments. Among the amendments which we have been denied the right to debate tonight are those in the group headed by Lords amendment No. 92. They are classed as technical, but they could be used to asset-strip local authorities as some of their housing stock could be forcibly removed. We have been denied the opportunity to question the Minister on those amendments which hitherto have been moved formally and not explained.
The Government are attempting to face both ways when it comes to what they consider democratic. All but the most partisan—unfortunately, the deliberately partisan have a majority in the House—regard the Government's proposals as undemocratic and unprincipled. The Government have confirmed us in that belief time and again by denying us the right to explore what is going on.
The Government have proposed a curious voting system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the dead and those who do not vote are deemed to have voted in favour of a transfer. The Government call it the inertia vote. [Interruption.] They gave reasons for it. In a quite different document, the Government talk of a new model active citizen—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is showing great discourtesy to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the noise may be the result of hon. Members' concern that an obscene picture has been laid on the Table of the House. Hon. Members wonder whether the Secretary of State has been nipping out during the debate to examine the document.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) should be heard by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Ms.Primarolo: Thank you, Madam deputy Speaker.
The document on the active model citizen talks of the interventionist role of individuals to improve the lot of their neighbours. That does not square with the proposal for an inertia vote. Indeed, inertia voting goes against the principle of natural jusice. The Government, however, are denying us the right to question them on that.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has told us that the Earl of Caithness made a statement on television about voting for potential HAT tenants. It seems that that which featured in the earl?s statement has not appeared on the Amendment Paper and that the Government are not proceeding with it. There are two members of the Cabinet on the Treasury Bench, and if they wished to intervene I am sure that my hon. Friend would be prepared to give

way to allow them to do so. Is it not high time, even during the debate on the motion, for them to tell us whether there is a reason for the Government choosing not to proceed with that which the Earl of Caithness described on television? Surely they should explain what will happen. If the guillotine does not provide sufficient time for an explanation to be given at a later date, there is sufficient time now. Or is this yet another example of a Minister saying something to the media—this time in public—that is not being carried out in practice?

Ms. Primarolo: The Government do not intend to give us the truth about the Bill, and that is the purpose of the motion. They will not engage us in debate. The occupants of the Treasury Front Bench have not moved, and it is clear that even at this late stage they will not come clean.
The Bill makes no provision, suggestions or proposals. We have not been convinced by any arguments that we have heard to date that have sought to explain why the Government are so passionately committed to the principle that private accommodation and private landlords will provide accommodation and correct the problems of homelessness and poor accommodation. The Government need to be reminded that council housing exists because of the failure of the private sector to house the people.
As a new Member, I suffer occasionally from the delusion that the purpose of being here is to debate, discuss, question, clarify and express the points of view of those whom we represent. During the passage of the Bill the Government have shown nothing but contempt for the electoral process, the rights of the people to housing and the rights of hon. Members to question and challenge them. Is it true that we no longer have the accountability of Ministers in the House? Whenever they do not want to answer a question, they move the closure, suspension and a timetable motion. That is what they have done throughout our discussions on the Bill. It is a disgrace. How dare they talk to us about giving people choice when they do not give Members of this place the right to choose what to question them upon?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 46.

Division No. 484]
[2.22 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bowis, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Amos, Alan
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Arbuthnot, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butler, Chris


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carrington, Matthew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James






Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gow, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gregory, Conal
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grist, Ian
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heddle, John
Price, Sir David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Raffan, Keith


Hill, James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Riddick, Graham


Holt, Richard
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunter, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Irvine, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Trippier, David


Knowles, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Latham, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lilley, Peter
Walden, George


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waller, Gary


Lord, Michael
Ward, John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Wheeler, John


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Maples, John
Wood, Timothy


Marland, Paul



Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mr. David Maclean and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Meyer, Sir Anthony





NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCartney, Ian


Battle, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Beith, A. J.
Meale, Alan


Boateng, Paul
Michael, Alun


Bradley, Keith
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Morgan, Rhodri


Clay, Bob
Morley, Elliott


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cunningham, Dr John
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Redmond, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Faulds, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Soley, Clive


Haynes, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Vaz, Keith





Wall, Pat
Winnick, David


Wallace, James



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Noes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)



Mrs. Llin Golding and



Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 46.

Division No. 485]
[2.34 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Jack, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Janman, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Jessel, Toby


Amos, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Ashby, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkins, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Latham, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Lawrence, Ivan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lilley, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lord, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bowis, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Brazier, Julian
Mans, Keith


Bright, Graham
Maples, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Burns, Simon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burt, Alistair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butler, Chris
Mills, Iain


Butterfill, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Carrington, Matthew
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Carttiss, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Page, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Paice, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Patnick, Irvine


Durant, Tony
Pawsey, James


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Price, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Raffan, Keith


Gow, Ian
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gregory, Conal
Roe, Mrs Marion


Grist, Ian
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Heddle, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sims, Roger


Hind, Kenneth
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Holt, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hunter, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Trippier, David






Twinn, Dr Ian
Watts, John


Viggers, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wheeler, John


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. David Maclean and


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Michael Fallon.




NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Meale, Alan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Michael, Alun


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Battle, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Beith, A. J.
Morley, Elliott


Boateng, Paul
Parry, Robert


Bradley, Keith
Pike, Peter L.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Prescott, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Primarolo, Dawn


Clay, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Cohen, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fatchett, Derek
Vaz, Keith


Faulds, Andrew
Wall, Pat


Fraser, John
Wallace, James


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert N.


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Ian
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Frank Cook.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.

To be further considered this day.

SCHOOL BOARDS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered this day.

ALL PARTY AND PARLIAMENTARY GROUPS

Resolved,
That this House approves the Resolution of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) relating to All Party and Parliamentary Groups, as set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee of Tuesday 25th October 1988 (HC 183-V).—[Mr. Dorrell.]

EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Robin Squire be discharged from the Select Committee on European Legislation, and Mr. Michael Knowles be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

PUBLIC HEALTH

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment No. 4 Order 1988 (S.I., 1988), dated 28th October 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

PHARMACEUTICAL DIRECTIVES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4171/88 on the extension of the pharmaceutical directives to medicinal products not yet covered; endorses the view that these instruments are a necessary component in the completion of the internal market in medicinal products to which the Government is committed; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that the Commission's action in this field continues to take full account of the United Kingdom's interests.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Question agreed to.

Hospital Service, Leicestershire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Michael Latham: In September, the Leicestershire health authority put forward a series of drastic proposals for public consultation. They affect all hon. Members with Leicestershire constituencies, and I have already advised you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister, that any Leicestershire Member who seeks to catch your eye will have my agreement to take part in this short debate.
Before that, I record the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). As a Whip, he is not allowed to speak but I know of his tremendous commitment to the Health Service in his constituency. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) are away from the House on important business, but have sent their good wishes; my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is, alas, unwell and awaiting an operation, but he has always been a tower of strength in lobbying for Leicestershire and he telephoned his good wishes from his sick bed.
The health authority is short of cash, especially the extra money needed to open phase 2 of the new Glenfield district hospital in 1990–91, and phase 4 of the Leicester royal infirmary in 1991–92, together with two small schemes in Loughborough and Hinckley. Those schemes alone will produce a deficit of more than £4 million. If the authority proceeds with other desirable improvements the deficit will be nearly £8 million, and by 1994, if nothing is done, it will have risen to £21 million.
The authority is trying to achieve savings by completely closing eight hospitals, transferring some wards between the various city hospitals and closing all four rural maternity units. Two of the hospitals scheduled for closure—Framland and Catmose Vale—and two of the maternity units—at St. Mary's, Melton Mowbray, and at Rutland memorial hospital—are in my constituency.
Leicestershire health authority has long been underfunded. When I was a new Member in 1974 Leicestershire received only 75 per cent. of national average NHS funding. With all the other county and city Members of Parliament at that time I went to see Mrs. Barbara Castle, the then Secretary of State. We urged her to improve Leicestershire's share of national resources and to permit the proposed new Glenfield hospital, at that time threatened with the axe, to be built. As a result of sustained all-party pressure and the good effect of the resource allocation working party, Leicestershire now gets 96 per cent. of the NHS national average, which is still not enough, but better than 75 per cent. The new Glenfield general hospital has been open for a couple of years, and funding phase 2 of it constitutes part of our financial problem.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister here, even at 2.48 am, but I must press her, first, to defend the RAWP formula. It is essential to Leicestershire, and we must proceed to 100 per cent. average funding as quickly as possible. Some people, perfectly honourably, have suggested mothballing the new Leicester units. I cannot support that, having pressed for almost 15 years for them to be built. Many of my constituents will benefit from

them. I press my hon. Friend to ensure that some of the new money announced for the NHS by the Chancellor in his autumn statement be urgently directed to Leicestershire to help it cope with its immediate cash crisis.
Several of the hospitals scheduled for closure were announced as long as over three years ago in the authority's 1985 strategic plan. Both Framland and Catmose Vale hospitals in my constituency are old hospitals. Splendid care of the elderly takes place at both units and I pay tribute to the staff. However, I do not oppose their closure, and nor do many of my constituents. We merely demand that some of the large sums released from the sale of the land be ploughed back into adequate provision of extra beds for the elderly in other hospitals in Melton and Oakham and into really effective community care. It will not be adequate to rely solely upon the private nursing homes, although they have an important part to play, and it will be wholly unsatisfactory to take maternity beds at the Rutland memorial hospital for the purposes of geriatric care. Rutland people expect additional provision to be made for the elderly at Rutland memorial hospital, with the use of some of the money from the sale of Catmose Vale, as was specifically promised in the 1985 strategy document. The elderly patients and the splendid staff deserve better than the health authority's present proposals, which seem ill thought out and inadequately related to the local needs of elderly people, who need to be visited by their families and friends.
Let me deal with the shameful proposal to close the rural maternity units at Oakham and Melton Mowbray. In my view, this proposal shows a complete lack of concern for the wishes of ordinary people in rural areas. In 1987, there were 296 maternity beds in seven hospitals throughout Leicestershire, providing for 10,789 deliveries. The new proposal is for 220 beds in two hospitals, both in Leicester city, for 11,000 deliveries, with the remaining five units being closed down.
That is the mentality of the NHS production line: grab them in and shove them out again and never mind about the wishes of the mother and the family. Those crude proposals have aroused immense anger in my constituency—anger that I share. They are dressed up as being good for mother and baby, allegedly because the birth will take place in a modern, hi-tech general hospital. The proposals ignore the fact that the two units are safe and friendly and, above all, accessible to women living in rural areas.
The NHS has been closing rural units for far too long. I can best illustrate that point with a personal example. My eldest son James, who is nearly 13, was born in November 1975 in Corby maternity unit, four miles from my home in Gretton. My younger son Richard, who is 9¾, was born in Kettering general hospital, 13 miles away, in February 1979 because the Corby maternity unit had closed in the intervening years. My wife went into labour with Richard, my younger son, in the middle of a massive snowstorm. The ambulance just got her out of my village before lunch, and she was the last person out of the village that day. I could not get out because I had to look after James at home. I did not see Richard until 24 hours after he was born and the roads had been cleared by snow ploughs.
That is the miserable prospect that awaits my constituents—except that the distance from some of the Rutland and Vale of Belvoir villages to Leicester is over 30 miles, often along poor roads and perhaps in fog, ice or snow. No, thank you very much. That simply is not tolerable, and I will not let it happen, especially when any


financial saving from such closures would be negligible, and the inconvenience, expense and worry for my constituents quite unacceptable.
I have great personal affection and respect for my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall make her an offer that she cannot refuse. If she wants my support for her conduct in the House of the NHS she will tell Leicestershire health authority here and now that the rural maternity units must be saved. If she does not, I promise her that I will make her ministerial life a misery until the units are saved. My constituents are simply not to be treated in that cavalier and unreasonable manner by the health authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has said the same. He has told the authority of his complete opposition to the closure of the maternity unit at Market Harborough cottage hospital. His wisdom, experience and knowledge of his constituents over nearly 30 years in the House deserve respect.
Finally let me say a word to the Leicestershire health authority, to which I shall also make an offer that it cannot refuse. I have a letter from the chairman, Mr. George Farnham, who is an old and valued friend of mine. It is a stick of political dynamite, and I intend to explode it now. He wrote to me 14 months ago on 8 September 1987, referring to maternity services in Melton and Rutland:
There is no question in my mind or in the minds, to the best of my knowledge, of our Gynaecologists about the retention of the peripheral maternity units; they will be retained as presently constituted. I hope this puts your mind at rest on this matter.
Mr. Farnham is a man of honour. I am sure that he will now tell his colleagues and staff in the health authority that the proposals cannot proceed. The maternity units must be saved forthwith and the battle should be won tonight.
I now invite other hon. Members from Leicestershire briefly to express their constituency concerns.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I congratulate him on the impressive stand that he took in the debate on the imposition of charges for eye and dental tests which we both agree will deny many people, especially the elderly, the right to medical services.
It is appropriate that we should discuss the Health Service in Leicestershire because a sickness is spreading through it. The root cause is, of course, resources. When my day began at 9.30 am yesterday I attended, with many mothers and babies from the constituencies of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who is also present in the Chamber, a lobby of the health authority in Princess road, Leicester. The object was, of course, to protest against the closure of the eight hospitals. Two have already been mentioned. The others are the Ashby and district hospital, Blaby hospital, Fielding Johnson, Higham Grange centre, the Regent hospital and the Roundhill maternity home. When one adds to those the proposed closures of wards at Groby road and Leicester general hospital in my constituency and the possible closure of the Towers hospital in 1992, one realises that the Health Service in Leicestershire is in crisis.
I pay tribute to the work that has been done by parents and staff and by unions such as NUPE and COHSE to oppose the closures. There are currently 8,500 people on the hospital waiting list in the Leicestershire district. There are 600 people waiting for orthopaedic operations; and it will take 60 full days of surgery to clear the urgent list, the only definition of urgency in such cases being that of indescribable pain. In Leicestershire it takes months or even years to get a hearing aid approved and fitted.
The morale of staff at local hospitals is at an all-time low. On Saturday 12 nurses came to my surgery at the Coleman neighbourhood centre. Sister Sandra Burgin has been working for more than 20 years as a theatre sister at the general hospital. Last week her managers announced to her that she would be receiving a pay rise of 38p per week. She says that that is a disgrace, and I agree. Ancillary workers at the hospital are being denied a pay rise of just £1·50 per week. The Government have robbed the Leicestershire health authority of more than £20 million in the past five years, and it will be a further £8 million short this year.
So far, 34 right hon. and hon. Members have signed my early-day motion opposing the closure of the eight hospitals. It must be pointed out, however, that the health authority still wastes a great deal of money. For example, in the general hospital in my constituency the health authority has decided to undertake a scheme called QED, resulting in hundreds of large red feet stickers being spread all over the hospital in an attempt to save money. That scheme has cost several thousands of pounds.
We all know where the blame lies and who is responsible. We know who has betrayed the county and who has robbed the people of Leicestershire of a decent Health Service and turned it into a jumble sale. I gave notice before the debate informing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), that I should be talking about him. I describe his attitude and conduct as hypocritical. Blaby hospital is in his constituency, but he has not lifted a finger to prevent its closure. This morning a petition of 10,000 signatures was presented to save the hospital.
Last week in the House of Commons the Chancellor promised £2 billion for the Health Service. I should like to know what will be Leicestershire's share. The Chancellor should be ashamed of himself because, as a Leicestershire Member of Parliament, he has taken part in a conspiracy to deny the people of Leicestershire their fair share of services. We want the cash, and we want it now.

3 am

Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for initiating this debate.
We have just heard something of a political tirade from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). He was not a Member in 1983 and so would not remember the hard work of my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton, for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and myself to ensure that Leicestershire received a fair share of the national RAWP average. It was down to 92 per cent. and the position was acute. It is now up to almost 97 per cent. That is not good enough—we


want 100 per cent.—but there has been a definite improvement. I am grateful to all those who worked so hard to achieve that.
We can appreciate the difficulties in which the Leicestershire health authority finds itself. In 1979 it had old hospitals, but all plans were put on the shelf because the previous Government had failed to provide sufficient funding for the NHS. Leicestershire health authority was desperate. It had to dust the plans off the shelf and try to provide the services that Leicestershire needed. It did not have sufficient acute services. Since 1984 there has been £18 million of new investment and a vast increase in the services required, above and beyond those that could be readily appreciated. As a result, the health authority is in some difficulty. It is not of its own making or that of the Government; it is simply a fact.
There has been enormous investment in Leicestershire, and we should be grateful to the Government for that. Leicestershire has centres of excellence. If I were to be desperately ill, I would rather be ill in Leicestershire than anywhere else. A new hospital was opened recently at Coalville. It provides much-needed services for the elderly. Because the population is becoming older, there is a need for those services. The hospital includes what I believe to be a very important service, the general practitioner beds. They are vital to the community. Many families who look after elderly relatives need some relief for a short time. Often one elderly person looks after another who is seriously ill, and he needs to have a few days break every six weeks or so.
Although I am pleased about the opening of Coalville hospital, it has placed the Ashby district hospital at risk. It has been in existence for more than 100 years and is very much loved. It has a maternity unit, but the difficulty is that there are only 3·4 births per week in the unit. Bed occupancy is only 33 per cent. Only easy births take place there; difficult births take place at the royal infirmary. The average stay is live days. I have spoken to the experts—not the doctors, but the nurses who run the unit—who say that they can never predict whether a birth will be easy or difficult. One in 10 is difficult and the patient has to be rushed to a major hospital. The nurses feel that the mothers are too much at risk. That is just one view and there are others. Mothers say, "Mothers are entitled to choose", but it is often those who have had an easy birth who say that. Those who had a difficult birth say, "Thank goodness we have these centres of excellence in Leicestershire."
Those are the two sides of the argument, which is a sad one. We must look at the overall picture and appreciate the difficulties of the area health authority. We must stress that it is providing excellent NHS facilities for the critically ill for the whole of Leicestershire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on winning the ballot. He takes a great interest in the welfare of his constituents and health care nationally. I took seriously his threat to make my life a misery, but I have to tell him that so long as I hold this great office of state and see daily many marvellous examples of good care in the NHS and outside, my life is a joy and nothing that he can do can dent it, even at 3 am.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) who is my neighbour. I join in his delight at the new Coalville hospital which has been welcomed and enjoyed by his constituents. I hope to see it before too long. I am sorry that our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) is unwell and I hope that my hon. Friends will convey to him my good wishes for a successful treatment and speedy recovery. If there is anything that I can do to help I should be glad to make myself useful, but I am sure he is being extremely well looked after at home.
I also note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) in his place on the Front Bench. That surprises me because I have in front of me the profile of Leicestershire district health authority produced by my Department and dated 31 October 1988 in which he, with his majority of 17,648, is recorded as a Labour Member. I think that that is a mistake and I am glad to have his support tonight.
I note also what the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has said and shall comment on his points as I proceed.
Trent regional health authority has benefited enormously from Government policy in recent years, as all present acknowledge. Ten years ago, when the party which the hon. Gentleman supported and probably still supports was in power, the authority was receiving £369 million. Last year it rose to just over £1 billion—an increase of about 14 per cent. in real terms—and Trent's initial cash allocation for this year was increased by 6·3 per cent. to over £1,050 million, which is well above the national average increase of 5·7 per cent. That shows both how much we care about the region and the tremendous improvement, particularly in the position of the regional health authority in relation to RAWP.
As I said on Monday night when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) was drawing attention to issues on health care also covered by Trent regional health authority:
We should not underestimate the impact of the Trent regional health authority or of the National Health Service generally on local life. More than 660,000 in-patients were cared for in Trent hospitals last year and total employment in the regional health authority stands at about 75,000 whole-time equivalent staff. The amount of money contributed to the local economy by the health authority is considerable."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 149.]
Leicestershire health authority is the biggest district in the country. It looks after a population of about three quarters of a million. It is a major centre for teaching and health care. It looks after about 100,000 in-patients a year and nearly 600,000 out-patients, with over 12,000 staff. In the past four years there has been an increase of more than 500 in front-line manpower—doctors and nurses. That is hardly the picture of misery that was painted by the hon. Gentleman. This year its capital allocation, for example, plus estimated income from the sale of land, will come close to £20 million.
When I became a Member of Parliament, Leicestershire heath authority was receiving £116 million a year. Last year it was £162 million and this year it is £177 million, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West said, demonstrates the improvement service and funding. Indeed, it gives the lie to what the hon. Gentleman said. So much for Government robbery. If that is robbery, most local people would rather have


more of it than less. The development of services in Leicestershire was described in the strategic review which Leicestershire health authority recently produced. I understand that it is out for consultation, so hon Members will realise that I am constrained in what I can say.
In 1984, the health authority started thinking about future services. The strategic plan was approved following wide public consultation and published in 1985. A number of the health authority's present plans were not in the plan published in 1985. The intention is to provide a first-class acute specialist service from three general hospitals—the Leicester Royal infirmary, Leicester general and Glenfield hospital, which are all in Leicester—but at the same time to redevelop smaller hospitals around the county into a series of community hospitals mainly concentrating on the care of elderly people, in which the growth of need is likely to be sharpest in the next few years.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said about geriatric services, but we cannot escape the fact that there will be a rapid increase in the number of elderly people. They will increasingly need our help in the future.
In the short time that I have left I shall concentrate on maternity care. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said about maternity care, but I hope that he will think that his criticism of the big hospitals was somewhat over the top. I shall not rehearse my obstetric history, but I had both my children at a major teaching hospital in the midlands, and I am glad that I did. I was booked as a low-risk mother, as most people with my background and housing would have been. I was not low risk and experienced problems, and I was extremely glad that everything was on tap. My baby was delivered in a slightly less than usual way, but she is fine. Had I had these problems elsewhere, we might have formed part of the statistics to which I shall refer in a moment. Throughout the country, hundreds of women receive excellent care in the major hospitals and it is not appropriate to infer that because a hospital is big it cannot give kindly care or that the quality of care is diminished. I hope that that is not the case, and I am certain that it is not in Leicestershire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West drew attention to something that is of significance in the papers prepared for consultation by the district health authority. The number of occupied beds for maternity care at Ashby hospital in the year ended 31 March 1988 was 5·9. That is quite a reasonable occupancy, but it suggests that there is a gap. At Roundhill there are 30 beds, of which 15 are unused, and the number of occupied beds is only 6·1. At St. Mary's, Melton, there are 10 beds, of which only five are used. At Rutland Harborough there are eight beds, of which three are used.

At Loughborough there are eight beds, of which six are used. By "used", I mean the average number of occupied beds. The number of births per bed per year in those hospitals in 1987 ranges between about 32 or 33 at St. Mary's, Melton, and 11 at Market Harborough.
I accept that in the strategic plan, the four small hospitals—particular reference has been made to the GP maternity beds—were regarded as remaining in use until the end of the planned period. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was right to draw attention to that, but it should be noted that the health authority decided in May 1987, following consultation and with agreement, that the total number of GP maternity beds in Market Harborough, Oakham and Melton Mowbray should be reduced from 56 to 31 in view of the significant under-use. The rate of use of some of those beds after that reduction is still less than half. Their main use is for out-patients, and that will remain so. Wherever babies are being born in Leicestershire, they are not, on the whole, being born in the small maternity units.
I am told that ante-natal care will be provided at each of the four hospitals and the accommodation released is intended for a variety of uses, most of which will require accommodation for geriatric patients, additional support services and out-patient clinics.
In a question to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said that he wanted no generalities and expected
to hear that the proposals to close all rural maternity units have been dropped?"—[Official Report, 3 November 1988; Vol. 139 c. 1189.]
The proposal has not been dropped. The health authority has not finished consultation on the matter. The proposal has not come before Ministers. That will probably happen next spring, but only if there is failure to agree locally. Whatever decision is taken it will be in the interests of the patients, and that includes unborn children. I carry the burden of knowing that 45 women in the United Kingdom died in childbirth last year. Although we announced yesterday that we have the lowest infant death rate on record, in comparison with other countries Britain has a worse record. The death rates in other countries of tiny babies have tended to fall faster.
I am grateful for this opportunity to listen to the views of my hon. Friends. The debate has shown again their interest in their constituents. I hope that they will take on board that we are trying to provide the best service that we can. I hear the commitment that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has made to the small maternity units and we shall ensure that his views, those of his constituents and other hon. Members are taken into Account.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Three o'clock.